Inward Investment: Northern Ireland

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to increase inward investment into Northern Ireland.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, one of the key aims of Invest Northern Ireland is to increase Northern Ireland's share of available foreign direct investment. To achieve this, it actively promotes Northern Ireland as an attractive, viable location for inward investment in key overseas markets. This work is ongoing through a network of global offices, focusing on a number of key industrial sectors.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the task of attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland is enormous, when one considers that the rate of corporation tax in the Republic is 12.5 per cent, against 30 per cent in Northern Ireland? That means that the Republic is a magnet for inward investment that might otherwise go to Northern Ireland. Is it not time that the Government thought again about this? I understand the difficulty of having different rates of corporation tax in different parts of the United Kingdom, but this might be a case for exceptional treatment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the effective rates of corporation tax are nothing like the figures that my noble friend has just given. Taking account of allowances and tax allowances, the figure is about 21.7 per cent for the UK and 13.7 per cent for the Republic. I accept that there is a gap. However, tax is a matter for the Treasury; it has been decided and there is no possibility of it being changed—it is a UK-wide regime. Other regions in the United Kingdom could make an equally good claim for differential taxation, whether it is Scotland, the north-east or elsewhere. The scope for the redirection of corporation tax profits for tax avoidance and the damage that that could cause to the economy is enormous.

Lord Laird: My Lords, does the Minister share my glee that there is a burgeoning and increasing tourist trade in Northern Ireland and that inward investment in the form of tourist facilities should be accepted? Does he further agree that plans to build a "Titanic" replica in the form of a hotel, with other "Titanic" icons, would be a major advantage to the tourist trade in Northern Ireland as well as bringing direct investment from all around the world for the Titanic centre?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I might have missed something, but I am not sure why there is such jollity at the noble Lord's question. The Titanic Quarter in Belfast has enormous potential for the whole of Northern Ireland. There are private sector-led development plans for that part of Belfast. We would welcome all kinds of investment into Northern Ireland, particularly that based on tourism. The more private sector investment, the better.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the Financial Times today carries a report showing that Northern Ireland continues to be the region in the UK most reliant on public sector employment. That, by itself, has squeezed out foreign private investment. What are the Government doing to reduce that dependency on the public sector?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, basically, we are trying to build up the private sector. Our intention is not to go around slashing public investment—that will not work—but we are trying to do everything possible to generate investment. The noble Lord is right: 30 per cent of employment in Northern Ireland is dependent on the public sector, which is far too high a percentage. There are lots of opportunities and lots of visits have been promoted by Invest Northern Ireland for potential investors—more than 500 between 2002 and 2005. There are some large investment projects in Northern Ireland supplying many thousands of jobs, and others are in the pipeline.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, there was a time when we had the finest engineering workforce and the best industrial relations in the kingdom. That is now not so. We are told that there is a shortage of skills, and there was the Public Accounts Committee's damning report about Jobskills costing nearly £500 million—the worst administered of anything that it had seen. What are Her Majesty's Government doing to improve skill levels and maintain the good industrial relations that we have always had?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: there has been a shift from manufacturing, which one can see from visits to Northern Ireland. That is typical of the whole of the UK economy. Therefore, as I said in my original Answer, the sectors are quite specific: internationally traded services such as software, contact centres, electronic communications, health and biotechnology.
	There is a need to upskill Northern Ireland's population. In fact, part of the new budget that has been launched for 2006–07 and 2007–08 has three new packages of new money. We have put up local rates to help fund them. One relates to children and young people and one to renewable energy. The other is deliberately targeted at upskilling the people of Northern Ireland to take account of the advantages. The fact is that unemployment is at a low level, but some of the rates of economic activity are quite low and we need to address that.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a specialist cheese maker. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland has oodles and oodles of wonderful grass for growing cattle which produce milk? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to encourage Northern Irish dairy farmers to add value to their milk and not just send it off to be dried—in other words, to make cheese? They are in an ideal situation to do that.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the agrifood industry is the largest industry in Northern Ireland and get loads of taxpayers' money either from the Government or through the common agricultural policy. We have a range of programmes designed to ensure that value is added throughout the food chain in Northern Ireland. The noble Countess is right: the more value that farmers and producers can add to their products, the better the return will be. There are umpteen schemes to help that through the marketing of Northern Ireland produce. In respect of cheese, I have just cut my cholesterol level in half, and one of the things I have had to stop eating is cheese.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the corporation tax regime, but there are other reasons why people might not want to invest in Northern Ireland, especially the perceptions that are held in other parts of the world. Bearing all that in mind, would not the best way forward be to encourage indigenous entrepreneurial skills in Northern Ireland?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, but there should be a mixture of both. There is not just one solution. Inward investment is much to be welcomed. Many people come to invest in the UK as a gateway to Europe. That being the case, there is no reason why anyone should invest in London, for a start. The rest of the United Kingdom should be used. Northern Ireland is as good a location with modern technology as anywhere else in the UK. Foreign investors renting vast expensive office space and paying high salaries in London would do better to go elsewhere—one will gather that I am not paid to be the Minister with responsibility for London at the moment.
	The noble Lord prefaced his remarks quite rightly—the fact is that there has been an element of peace in Northern Ireland. There was unrest last year, which can put people off, but that was just a blip. All the ingredients are there for Northern Ireland to take off, but that will come from inward investment, indigenous growth and direct foreign investment.

Further Education: 16-hour Rule

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they are making in their review of the 16-hour rule which denies young people aged 19 and over in further education access to maintenance or housing benefit if they study for more than 16 hours a week.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, individuals who are undertaking independent full-time study are considered to be students, and successive governments have taken the view that their financial support is the responsibility of the education system. My department continues to review the rules for people who are claiming housing benefit while studying and working for more than 16 hours a week.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but does he realise what nonsense it makes of the Government's ambition that young people should be given encouragement to improve themselves? How can we expect young people—many of them from very disadvantaged homes—who have the opportunity to come back into education through organisations such as the Foyer Federation but who depend on housing benefit to pay their rent to be confronted at the age of 19, having just started their course, with the stark choice of giving up that course or giving up the home that they have found in the organisation?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that a rule change occurred in 1990. The principle arising from that was that those opting to study full time in both higher and further education were seen to be the responsibility of the education system. The noble Baroness will know that grants are available to people in the circumstances that she described. I understand the point that she raised. The review that is being undertaken is expected to report to Ministers in the summer.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the people who concerned her most were those who came from a disadvantaged background. We know that we all lose through their not being well advanced in education and skills. It is a national problem. For all our sakes, we need to tackle that area. Yes, education is involved, but it goes beyond that. Might the Government consider extending for an extra year the one year that is already approved for those who are studying at 18, so that if their course is not finished, they can complete it?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He speaks with great experience. There is no question that doing everything we can to encourage disadvantaged people, particularly young people who may have missed out in their formal education, to get as good an education as possible is very important. It is because of that that various grants and funding mechanisms through the education system are in place to allow support for such people. However, I take the point that the noble Lord raised. A review is being undertaken. As I said to noble Lords, we expect officials to report to Ministers in the summer.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister has said twice in answer to supplementary questions that various grants exist to help such people in the education system. Will he list some?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would be delighted to go through an extensive list. First, there are discretionary learner support funds. Secondly, there is the adult learning grant, which is a new income-assessment grant for which adults who are not in receipt of out-of-work benefits are entitled to apply for undertaking studies leading to level 1, 2 or 3 qualifications. That is being piloted. Thirdly, career development loans are provided by three major banks on a commercial basis to support learners in their chosen course.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the Rover plant at Longbridge, the 16-hour rule was waived to allow workers to train for other jobs? During the review that his department is undertaking, will it consider whether that example could be used as a pilot for raising the ceiling for other discrete groups; for example, people who have committed themselves to training and work by entering the Foyer process?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion. I am happy to take it on board. There is no question—the noble Baroness knows that I come from Birmingham—that the help given by my department and by many other people is exemplary. Many people who were affected by Rover have gone back into work. I am very much aware of the work that the Foyer Federation has undertaken in the past 10 years in helping thousands of homeless people. We are considering the issues that it has put forward.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the review look carefully at issues for care leavers? While they are in care, as the Minister will be aware, one in five young people has more than three placements in a year. They leave care on average at 17, when most young people leave home at 24. They experience much disruption, and the opportunity to achieve later in life when they have overcome some of their earlier problems is very much to be sought after.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the issue of carers may well go beyond the terms of reference of the review that I have been referring to. As regards carers in general, the point is well taken. The Government's record in finding a range of support for carers has been very good, but we can never be complacent on the issue, and I will look at it further.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, does the cut-off at 19 mean that you could be stopped in the middle of a course, or is there any special provision to ensure that you can finish your course?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that relates to the academic year with which the age is concerned. As I have said, I am certainly prepared to look at the detail to see whether there are any specific problems that the noble Lord has raised, but the current rule is well understood.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Listowel was referring to young people leaving care, not carers?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry, and I am grateful for the clarification. Noble Lords will know that about four years ago we passed legislation to enhance the support that statutory agencies ought to give to children leaving care. I hope that that part of that support can be integrated into the more general support in my department helping young people into work. I certainly agree with that.

Disability: Welfare Reform Green Paper

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the delay of more than one month in the production of an accessible version of the welfare reform Green Paper A New Deal for Welfare constitutes discrimination against disabled people; and whether disabled people will have the same consultation period as others.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the department would never knowingly discriminate against disabled people. We very much regret that the last of the accessible versions of the Green Paper was not available until 28 February 2006. We are determined to do better in the future. However, we have agreed that, where people need more time to take part in the consultation, we will individually extend the deadline of 21 April to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to respond.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that, five years ago, his department published guidance entitled Let's make it accessible, which advised all government departments that information that directly affected disabled people should be given a priority for accessibility? Is he further aware that accessible formats were delayed on the equality White Paper, the Equality Bill, the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the Youth Matters Green Paper? Those are only a few; there are more. Does my noble friend agree that this is in fact a subtle form of discrimination and that there must be an urgent review across government to see that it is stopped? If it is not, government departments might find themselves in breach of the Act.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. I can tell him that my department is reviewing the guidance on accessible formats as part of a substantial departmental review of provision of customer information. As for the Government as a whole, my noble friend will be aware of the establishment of the Office for Disability Issues, which is enabling us to look at disability issues across the whole of government. I have talked to my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People this morning, and she has made it clear to me that one of the first tasks of the ODI will be to look at information across the whole of government.

Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was the chairman of two Joint Committees looking at the draft Mental Incapacity Bill and the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, on which I also served? Both the lengthy reports produced were available in accessible versions on the day of their publication. If it is possible for lengthy reports such as those, why is it not possible for all government documents?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have to hold up my hands and say that it is because we were not as well prepared as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. There are many lessons to be learnt. I have apologised to the House. We did not do as well as we ought to have done with regard to the Green Paper.
	Part of the problem—I have copies here of some of the excellent versions that have now been produced—is that they take a long time to produce. We simply did not get to the starting gate early enough to have them ready when the Green Paper was produced. Another problem is that sometimes the midnight oil is burning right up to the last moment in the production of such a paper. However, having accepted that, we certainly ought to do better. Noble Lords will have recognised from my first Answer that, where individuals have been inconvenienced in the consultation period, we will give them longer to respond to the Green Paper itself.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister take away from this debate and communicate to his colleagues in government an assurance that we are not going to go away and that we will continue to monitor Acts that we have spent so long getting in place? Can he also give us an undertaking that we will not get any more boasting about how advanced we are with disability legislation until the Government themselves ensure that they enact at least the spirit of it?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I go along with that up to a point. I think that this country should be very proud of the disability discrimination legislation that we have passed and of what has been achieved, although of course there is still much to do. I fully accept that the Government ought to be an exemplar, and we strive to do that. As I have already said to the House, the Office for Disability Issues, which is charged to assist a cross-government approach to disability issues, will look at the publication of leaflets, information, guidance and official government reports.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that after December this year, when all public bodies, not least local authorities and health trusts, will have the new duty to promote disability equality, they should ensure that forward planning is in place to produce their consultations in accessible formats and that the Government should set a strong example?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, yes and yes.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the delay of the accessible versions of this Green Paper has exacerbated the fears of those with mental illness who are claimants of invalidity benefit? Can he say how many of the 2.7 million who claim invalidity benefit are ascribed as having problems with mental illness?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think, off the cuff, that the current annual figures show that about 40 per cent could be classified with some mental health issue, but I will write to the noble Lord with the full details. Certainly, it is a big problem. However, I do not think that claimants should be concerned about the outcome of the Green Paper. The fact—I risk boring the House by talking about Pathways to Work pilots again—is that the Green Paper is very much based on the experience of the pilots. Through those pilots, many people with mental health problems have been helped back into work. The whole new system is about helping people come off benefits and into work, enormously improving their life outcomes. I hope, on that basis, that noble Lords will support the thrust of what we are seeking to do.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the replies on this subject from Ministers here and in the House of Commons have been friendly, sympathetic and helpful? What is required now is for Ministers to consider the needs of disabled people as being as urgent and as important as those of non-disabled people rather than as an afterthought.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the very point that I take away from the issue and from the debate. I have said that we should have done better on the Green Paper, and we will seek to do better.

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Baroness Trumpington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider the decision by the Natural Environment Research Council to close the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Natural Environment Research Council science budget allocation has doubled since 1997 to £334 million for this year, demonstrating the Government's commitment to environment research in the UK. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) is a wholly owned research centre of NERC, and in accordance with the long-standing Haldane principle, the Government believe that decisions about its scientific programme should be taken by NERC's independent council. The Government do not intend, therefore, to call in or second-guess the council's decision to restructure the CEH.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Bearing in mind that all leading scientific bodies are concerned by the threat from climate change to Britain's habitats and species, is it not extraordinary that NERC should ignore the opinions of those bodies and proceed to close three CEH centres?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, first, the amount spent on addressing climate change has gone up from £46 million in 1998–99 to £82 million in the past year. Secondly, the council sees no reason why that proportion, which is 28 per cent of the total, will change. Where it is spent will change, but it is necessary for NERC, like other research bodies, to focus on its key research areas in future, which is what it will do.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sir David Attenborough and several other fellows of the Royal Society have described the decision as scientifically flawed, particularly given the need for research into climate change, as has been mentioned—they deal particularly with fresh water, which a Select Committee of the House is also addressing—and bearing in mind the quality of the research in those establishments?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the basis of restructuring was an international peer-review process in which 67 eminent scientists took part, 27 of whom were from abroad. There was a further moderating panel of 16 people, three from outside the UK. On that basis it was decided that it was necessary to align the CEH's work with the new priorities. Research on freshwater ecology will continue and will, in fact, be strengthened.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister has told us the budget figures for this year. However, in 2002 the Government told the Science and Technology Committee that the budget would be £350 million. Have the Government cut the budget without saying so? Furthermore, NERC's own website says that it is accountable to Parliament. The Minister has quoted a principle, but what does "accountable to Parliament" mean if, when there is an Early-Day Motion in the other place and questions of such deep concern here, NERC is still said not to be accountable because it is independent?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the figure has always been £334 million; that is still planned. As for parliamentary accountability, it has always been clear that the council is accountable for its performance. However, under the long-standing, highly admirable Haldane convention, Ministers do not interfere in the allocation of scientific research work. I draw your Lordships' attention to remarks made in the debate on 10 May 2004 on setting up the Arts and Humanities Research Council, including those made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Carnegy of Lour. Noble Lords then made the point strongly that such research councils should have the same autonomy and freedom as other research councils. There was general applause for that attitude, and this is a good example of what was meant.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of the concern expressed about water shortages and ecological effects in the very areas that these stations were researching and although I accept my noble friend's view that Ministers should not interfere directly in the priorities of research establishments, could it nevertheless not be put to the Natural Environment Research Council that the importance of water research in particular needs greater emphasis? If it is indeed NERC's own decision to change its priorities rather than a funding issue, as my noble friend implies, can it be asked to think again?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, people fear that important activities will not continue, but, in fact, they will be strengthened. Examples of that include the countryside survey, long-term monitoring research of freshwater ecology to help implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and predicting the impact of climate change on biodiversity. All the fundamental monitoring arrangements that contribute to important aspects will be strengthened.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister tell us about the 1,327 written statements that the council received? I understand that of the first 500 received only six people were in favour of the alterations. Secondly, how does he square his assertion that it was for the council to maintain its independence and not be influenced by government with the fact that Government have targets to reach and clearly are failing to reach them as regards climate change?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the simple answer is that research councils do research. There can be debates about whether the research is undertaken in the right areas; as I have said, that is largely for scientists to decide and not for Ministers to interfere in. That was stated clearly in the House during the debate on the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The question of whether the Government are meeting their targets is quite separate and is not the responsibility of the research council.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time, and passed.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government intend to move amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill, currently before this House, to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans they receive.
	This issue affects all political parties and I hope that the Government, political parties and the Electoral Commission will be able to work constructively together to find a solution which allows for transparency and fairness.
	My intention is to achieve as great a transparency for loans made to political parties as applies to donations under the regime in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	I have today written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster, and to the Electoral Commission, seeking their views on the elements of a reporting regime, including whether it should be retrospective. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
	The Prime Minister has announced that Sir Hayden Phillips will conduct a review of the funding of the political parties. The terms of reference of the review were announced earlier today. I have placed a copy in the Library.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for coming to the House and making that Statement. But does he not share my feeling that it is "here we go again", with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor touring the television studios all morning and turning up here after lunch to clear up another mess caused by the Prime Minister? That seems to be one role that the Lord Chancellor will never be able to abolish.
	This is a deeply dispiriting day, and the Prime Minister should hang his head in shame. I have sympathy for many of those caught up in this affair—sympathy for those who were asked—I repeat, asked—to give loans to Labour, then saw No. 10 deliberately leak their names to the media in an attempt to bounce the Appointments Commission. As a direct result, those people have faced criticism of the worst sort, in which the good that they have done has been lost in a storm of scandal. The culture of spin and leak that besmirches this Government, besmirches them, too.
	I have sympathy for those noble Lords in this House who legitimate and openly donated money to political parties in the past, but who came here by a lifetime of public achievement and service. Their names should not be dragged into this scandal.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Strathclyde: But, my Lords, I have no sympathy at all for the Prime Minister and his coterie of cronies who are at the heart of this affair. They have dragged politics, their party, and, sadly, this House, into disrepute. The buck stops firmly at No. 10. I accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not know about loans for peerages. Can it be true, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister did not know, that the Chancellor did not know, that even the Labour treasurer did not know? As it concerns the honour of this House, who in the government machine knew that certain individuals had loaned money to the Labour Party before they were nominated for peerages in the current list? Was it the Patronage Secretary, or perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House or the noble Lord, Lord Levy? Just who did know, apart from the Prime Minister?
	I welcome this Statement, as far as it goes. We on this side supported the moves made in recent years to improve the law on party funding, since Mr Major set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1994. We will join in talks with Sir Hayden Phillips. My right honourable friend Mr Cameron has been working on proposals to reform the law on party funding. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider all those proposals, rather than rush to push through his own ideas—which, with the best will in the world, must have been cooked up in the No.10 kitchen after the story broke only a few days ago. Would it not be sensible to delay the Committee stage of the Electoral Administration Bill so that these critical matters can be considered in detail? If he cannot agree to that, will he use his considerable influence with the usual channels to ensure that time is made available to recommit any provisions that may be tabled on party finance, especially since we are already halfway through the Committee stage on that Bill? I know, for instance, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the Government Chief Whip, hopes that some time could become available—time that is now scheduled for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
	I do not suppose that I was the only Peer who was amazed to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say on television that he had found a loophole in the legislation that he now wanted to close, and that he had a Bill he could use to do so. It sounded all too much like the burglar caught in the back garden, with a bag of swag, who says he only wanted to polish the silver.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was the Prime Minister who introduced that legislation; the Prime Minister who saw the loophole and exploited it; the Prime Minister's people who told donors to give loans, not gifts, so that they could be kept secret; it was the Prime Minister who offered the peerages. For all the talk of using the Electoral Administration Bill to right this wrong, there was not a peep about it from Ministers when it was introduced just a few weeks ago. I fear that this House has been gravely damaged by what will inevitably be remembered as the loans for peerages affair. It is vital to restore public confidence in our political system. We will play our part in what is now needed—a fresh start and a change of values behind the best known front door in the world.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Statement and the announcement of the review to be carried out by Sir Hayden Phillips. Under pressure first from the Appointments Commission, then from the media, the Government are being forced to consider doing things that they should have done long ago—which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for years. The mechanism of using huge loans as a way of evading the obligation to disclose donations has horrified the general public and has done much to increase public disdain for politicians and the political process. I am aware that the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 do not require disclosure of loans made on commercial terms. That reflected the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I confess I was a member of that committee at the time. We were, I am afraid, na-ve in not realising that loans—even at full market rates of interest—could and would be used for the evasion of the duty of disclosure. We therefore welcome the commitment to treat loans as donations, whatever the rate of interest. Last week, we on these Benches tabled amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill which will achieve this. We will probably reach them in the debate on Thursday. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would like to accept the ready-made alternatives that are available.
	Our amendments would also treat as donations guarantees given by wealthy supporters of political parties of the bank loans and other debts incurred by those parties. If that is not done, it will obviously be the next loophole for evading disclosure. Therefore, will the Government also treat guarantees as donations of the amounts guaranteed for the purposes of disclosure? Otherwise, their amendments will be totally flawed.
	My next question—I wish to ask it of the Conservatives as well as of the Government—is whether any loans have been used to evade the ban on donations by non-residents of this country. If so, that is another, perhaps even more serious, breach of the spirit of the law in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Then, will the Government speed up Sir Hayden Phillips's timetable? He has been asked in his remit to report by the end of this year. It is extremely important that there should be legislation to deal with these matters in the 2006–07 Session, and that means legislation being written into the Queen's Speech. Therefore, will the Government be prepared to ask Sir Hayden to report by, say, mid-October so that that can be done?
	Will Sir Hayden look at the evasion of restrictions on constituency spending limits by, for example, the national parties sending leaflets to voters in target seats, which escape treatment as constituency expenditure because they do not mention the name of the party's candidate? Will Sir Hayden consider the proposal of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that something equivalent to gift aid should be available to enhance the value of small donations? Or will he consider the recommendations of the Power report that voters can tick a box on the ballot paper to donate £3 out of their taxes to the party for which they voted?
	Previously, the Government's answer to such ideas has been that they would take money which would otherwise go to schools and hospitals. Do the Government not realise that, alongside the billions which are rightly spent on schools and hospitals, it is vital to spend a tiny fraction of that amount on ensuring an honest and transparent electoral system?
	We are faced with a crisis of confidence in the entire political system and, indeed, in your Lordships' House. It is essential for the Leaders of all parties to display proper leadership. We need a recognition by all parties—of course, I include mine—that they have to comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law, and that clever schemes to evade the law will rebound on those who use them and on the whole political system, as these undisclosed loans have rebounded on the Government and on the Prime Minister.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the unequivocal support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the proposals that I am making. I deeply regret that the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Opposition does not appear to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, that it is a problem for every political party in this country. The problem has arisen precisely for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave. The Committee on Standards in Public Life proposed the exception for loans on commercial terms. Everyone thought that it was perfectly sensible that the borrowing from the National Westminster Bank should not have to be disclosed. The consequences of that exception have been revealed over the past few weeks, and we need to do something about it to restore public confidence.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I deeply regret that individuals' names have been brought into the press in the way that they have. I have absolutely no reason to suppose that that came from No. 10, but I share the noble Lord's deep concern that people who have given to public life in the way that many on the list have done have had their names besmirched in this way.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we also need to look at other issues, such as guarantees. There is a difference between what I am proposing now and what Sir Hayden Phillips will be looking at. As the chair of the Electoral Commission said in the Times this morning, we need to have political parties and they need to be funded. They need to be funded in a way that improves and impresses public confidence. That is a longer-term issue than that which can be dealt with by an amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill. But there is no need to delay introducing an amendment about transparency regarding loans. That is why I am making my announcement today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is absolutely right that I spoke on the radio and television about this issue today. I apologise to the House for that. It was entirely my decision and responsibility. It was an issue of great public importance, so I thought it right that the public debate should continue. I hope that those on the Benches opposite will support the proposal for greater transparency.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that it might be salutary after these revelations if a few prosecutions were brought under the 1920s legislation that forbids the sale of peerages? Perhaps he will have a word with his noble and learned friend the Attorney-General.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that there is great public disquiet, and it is right to put in place a legal framework in which everybody has confidence.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, surely this question goes beyond loans and even cash for honours. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that it is wrong for any organisation—whether a trade union or any other—to buy political influence through political donations? I remind him that in leading the attack on the Conservative Party in 1993 when I was party chairman, the then deputy leader of the Labour Party, Margaret Beckett, said that, in contrast to the Conservatives, the Labour Party reveals,
	"from where we obtain almost every single penny that we receive".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/93; col. 187.]
	When did that policy change?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This issue goes way beyond loans. That is why we have asked a respected independent figure, Sir Hayden Phillips, to look right across the board at the question of party funding. The issues are much more than just about loans; they are about donations, and relationships with donors and organisations that support the parties. We have never stopped our policy of being as transparent as the law requires. A new legal framework is required.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, have any of these loans ever been repaid?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot comment on the detail of these particular loans because further work is required.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is entirely reprehensible that by accepting these loans, the Government—or at least Mr Blair and some of his colleagues—sought to undermine the safeguards that they put in place regarding donations. Will Sir Hayden Phillips's committee consider voluntary or compulsory donations by taxpayers? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that when political parties get their snouts into the taxpayers' trough, there will be no limit to the expenditure, and it will by no means eliminate problems and corruption regarding such expenditure?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Sir Hayden Phillips's committee has a completely unlimited term of reference to look at the funding of political parties generally. It will consider voluntary and even compulsory donations. The noble Lord refers to a concern that many people have: is it a sensible use of money to give it to political parties? That is one of the issues that the committee will consider. Everything is open, and I fully agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, says. There is a much more profound problem than simply loans, which we need to address, because the health of our political system depends on the health of our political parties.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that although the Labour Party is in the dock this week, some distinctive and distinguished members of that party are particularly angry about the way in which they have been deceived in this affair? Problems with party financing have been going on for a long time—even before Lloyd George's day and the Liberal Party. In future, will the Prime Minister desist from saying that his Government will be whiter than white, and say, "greyer than grey"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree that there has been a problem with party finance for many years, decades, generations and centuries. We have tried to deal with it; we did not deal with it adequately. That is why all the political parties and the Electoral Commission must come together to find a durable solution to this problem.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, could we not introduce enabling provisions within the Electoral Administration Bill to cover the possibility of introducing regulations on state funding and donations at a later stage?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we need to see precisely what would be the best amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill in relation to the loans issues. In relation to the wider issues, we need consensus across the political spectrum, embracing all parties. That way we will have a durable solution. I do not think it is possible to pre-seed the way in which one would do that in the Electoral Administration Bill. I do not know what the Delegated Powers Committee here would say, but introducing an enabling power to deal with an as yet unknown proposal does not seem to be a sound way of proceeding.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will Sir Hayden Phillips's remit enable him to look at the ceiling of expenditure at election times? After all, that is part of the root cause of why parties want ever-increasing funds. Will he be able to comment on whether this should be reduced?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, the terms of reference allow Sir Hayden Phillips to consider that.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord avoided answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about prosecutions, by saying that it was desirable to put in place a good statutory regime for the future. Does the noble and learned Lord think it is desirable that, if an offence has been committed under existing legislation, a prosecution should be brought? If so, would the noble and learned Lord bring that to the attention of the appropriate person?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course it is desirable if any offences have been committed, but I have no reason to suppose that offences have been committed.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, political funding is needed because there are political costs. Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that these costs are often at ward level, constituency level, the level of groups of constituencies in a city, and at regional level? Will Sir Hayden Phillips's review look—particularly in terms of what we call "state funding"—not only at nationalised state funding, but really take account of costs at all levels of political activity?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, his terms of reference certainly embrace that. The noble Lord's point is very important. There is state funding that can promote strong political activity of integrity at every level, including at local level. The stronger and more respected that political activity, the better for the health of our political system. We need to look not just at the issues of funding, for example, general elections, but funding local activity in communities.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the number of people who vote in general elections, which is worryingly low, is not unrelated to the way parties are funded, and would be closely related if there were certain changes to that way of funding? Would he also agree that it would be very much in the interests of the Phillips committee to look carefully at the report of the Power committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws? This has a number of very interesting findings and comments on that subject. Would he further agree that it would be wise of the committee to pay a good deal of attention to that report?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would certainly expect Sir Hayden Phillips's committee to look at the Power report, because it specifically addresses this issue. Political funding is one of the issues in the political system that causes the public concern. That is why it is so important that we operate together in a unified way to try to reach a solution.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to the need for consensus on this subject. It is obvious that there is a consensus among the three parties to come together on the best way of taking more money from the public and to reach that consensus so quickly that the public will not notice. That may well be the intention. But the serious point is that all politicians—I was an offender in the past—can do one thing above all else, which is to spend public money, in this case, for the benefit of the Government.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that people will not perceive what emerges as political parties coming together and thinking of ways of getting public money for themselves. One of the critical aspects of this matter is that there is not public confidence in funding arrangements at the moment. If funding arrangements involve state funding, that must be done on a basis that the public regard as satisfactory. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, are very important because funding that improves the role of political parties at a local level may well be much more acceptable than state funding for, for example, posters in a general election campaign.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the examination by Sir Hayden Phillips include the subject of Short money? If so, will the noble and learned Lord invite him to look at the level of funding for the Cross-Benchers?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at the forefront of the crisis on political funding is the funding for the Cross-Benchers. Of all the people in the world who will put their concerns to the fore, Sir Hayden Phillips is the man.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I understood that recommendations for the peerage are confidential until the time at which they are decided upon. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he has no reason to suppose that the particular publications had come from No. 10. What investigation has he made about where they came from, and what was the result?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have made no investigation, but I make absolutely clear how much I deplore these names becoming public before any proper process has been gone through. I also regret that allegations were made by the Leader of the Opposition in this House that they had come from No. 10. I have no reason to suppose that that is right. It is wrong that people should make allegations about such a serious matter without first knowing the facts.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that if we were to separate serving in this House from having a title, we would have clarity in the process and the enthusiasm to be here that apparently exists outside the House would be lessened?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have assumed that noble Lords come here only to help with legislation and that they are not at all interested in the question of titles. However, I agree that when we come to second Chamber reform, we need to address the question of whether honours should be separated from one's role as a legislator.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the transparency and level playing field to which the noble and learned Lord has referred include the financial relationships between political parties and trades unions?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it will include the relationships between political parties and any organisations, including trades unions. Sir Hayden Phillips's inquiry covers the whole of the funding of all political parties, and we need to look at how those relationships are affected by financing.

Lord Richard: My Lords, in the interests of the transparency that the Opposition is now demanding, and which the Government are prepared to accept, can my noble and learned friend tell the House whether, in the interests of that transparency, the Conservative Party has told him the extent of its loans and the Liberal Democrats have told him the extent of comparable loans to that party? Otherwise, it does not seem awfully transparent.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, neither the Liberal Democrats nor the Conservatives have told me anything, but that is hardly surprising.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, now that the Attorney-General has joined us in the Chamber, will the Lord Chancellor care to advance a little on his answers to my noble friend Lord Waddington and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and say whether he and the Attorney-General will encourage prosecutions relating to the sale of peerages under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think I have already answered that question twice.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that we face a very serious crisis of confidence in our political system, but one of the aspects of political fundraising is that it sometimes goes beyond traditional methods. Will the Phillips committee discuss the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Levy, the fundraiser for the Prime Minister?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Sir Hayden Phillips's remit is not to investigate individual cases but to consider the whole system of political funding, and that is what he will do.

Identity Cards Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	16 Clause 5, page 4, line 44, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	22 Clause 8, page 7, line 42, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 but propose Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu.
	22E Page 7, line 38, after "accompanies" insert "or includes"
	22F Page 7, line 43, leave out from "manner" to the end and insert "ensure that an application to be issued with such a card accompanies or is included"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu.
	Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F were agreed by the other place on Thursday 16 March by a majority of 51 votes. They are technical amendments to Clause 8, which makes it clear that an application for an identity card must include or accompany one to be entered on the national identity register. I will also seek to persuade your Lordships not to accept Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, which would amend Motion A by adding Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H, which would delay the proposed automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards so that it would apply only to applications made after 31 December 2011.
	I will explain first why we believe that the amending Motion is not the helpful compromise which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, intended it to be or which he may suggest it is to this House, but would do little more than reinstate Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, which would unpick the linkage between designated documents and identity cards, albeit for a limited time rather than indefinitely. I remind the House that we have debated these issues several times, but this issue has now been in three Bills and, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, found favour, we would have had the joy of discussing it in three Parliaments.
	The noble Lord's Motion would mean that we would have to delay the requirement for applicants for designated documents to be registered and to obtain an identity card until the end of 2011—that is, after any new election. Although we might not expect to phase in the introduction of identity cards to all categories of passport applicants straight away, any constraint on designation would create uncertainties in our planning and would risk incurring additional costs. First, in line with other EU countries, we expect to start issuing biometric British passports that include fingerprints by 2009. Without the requirement for recipients of designated documents, such as biometric passports, to register on the national identity register and be issued with an identity card, we would have to provide for two alternative processes with separate records for those who chose to register and those who chose not to register. I am not saying that such processes would not be technically feasible, but such a purely artificial deadline would create real problems for the phasing of the scheme, all of which would be bound to impact on costs—something about which this House purported to have a great deal of concern.
	Linking the issue of fingerprint biometric passports with identity cards makes sense and is the basis of the Government's planning for rolling out the identity card scheme as people renew their existing identity documents. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, anyone who feels strongly enough about this linkage not to want to be issued with an identity card in this initial phase will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new one before the designation order takes effect. However, I doubt whether very many people would want to avoid the opportunity of obtaining an identity card when their passport is renewed.
	The House has focused very much on the impact on people applying for passports, but we are also likely to start issuing biometric resident permits to those foreign nationals temporarily resident here around the same time, in 2008 or 2009. Again, without the requirement for designation and registration on the national identity register, foreign nationals could opt out of the scheme and we would be forced to maintain separate records for those who opt in and those who opt out of the register. If in the initial stage registration was optional, there would be extra costs, even if this lasted only two or three years.
	There would also be delays, not only in British passport holders being registered but also in foreign nationals being included on the national identity register. A change in the way in which the scheme is to be phased in would require considerable reworking of the current identity cards business plan and procurement strategy. This would create further delay in the programme and so could add to costs.
	I could go on about the details but we now have the same argument for the fourth time. The Government say that the link should be made—and made now—with certainty and clarity so that procurement can go on. Members opposite say no; they want delay, they want procrastination and they want to put it off until after the next election. Members of the other place have had the advantage of thinking about this on three occasions. On a previous occasion when they discussed this, the vote against your Lordships' position was 33; it is now 51. On the previous occasion I indicated that I believed the voices in the other place would get louder. We now have a cacophony coming from them of "No", "No" and "No" again. They were asked to consider again and they have considered again.
	We are asking now for this House, having done its duty with such diligence and care, to determine that its proper function is to review, amend and suggest. The proper function of the other House, holding the mandate of the people of this country, is in the end to decide. Its Members will pay the price of that decision when the next election comes about; we, on our comfortable Benches, will not.
	There are those who think that this Parliament should be unicameral. I would not like this House to give them any more basis for suggesting that that would be a good move.
	We come to a position where I have to entreat the House to use its normal wisdom—something that I hope your Lordships brought into the Chamber today—and to decide that now, if not the previous occasion, is the appropriate time to let the other House have its way and bow, as we must, to their mandate.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "disagreement" to end and insert "and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu, but do propose Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H in lieu—
	22G Page 4, line 44, after "individual" insert "and is made on or before 31st December 2011, that application may, if the individual so chooses, include an application by that individual to be entered in the Register.
	(2A) Where an application to be issued with a designated document is made by an individual and is made after 31st December 2011,"
	22H Page 7, line 42, leave out from "card" to end of line 2 on page 8 and insert "may, if the individual so chooses, in the prescribed manner, include an application to be issued with such a card in any application made by him to be issued with a designated document, where that application is made on or before 31st December 2011.
	(7A) An individual who is not already the holder of an ID card must, in the prescribed manner, include an application to be issued with such a card in any application made by him to be issued with a designated document, where that application is made after 31st December 2011.""

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we know full well that last Wednesday we debated all this and that the Commons threw us over on Thursday. The Minister may agree with me when she talks about the long consideration given by the other place to this Bill, but they were allowed one hour precisely last Thursday and one hour on the previous occasion when they threw us over. Given the importance of this Bill I do not think that that is a satisfactory amount of time for the other place to consider the very deliberate views of this place.
	On Thursday the Home Secretary said:
	"A general election is a pretty important part of the relationship between the individual and the state".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/06; col. 1643.]
	That is our point. It is not necessary to be a slave to manifestos to accord them considerable weight, especially where they concern such a basic civic issue as root-and-branch change in the law of privacy as it will be implemented in this Bill.
	Recommendation 7 of the Wakeham commission report, also quoted by Mr Clarke, states that the Government's,
	"general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber".
	That too is why we persist; not to wreck or undermine but to get the Government to respect their plain commitment to voluntary ID cards at the stage when passports are renewed.
	On Thursday Mr Clarke raised the issue of the extra cost attending our compromise amendment, which the Minister referred to today. The Home Secretary, apparently without irony, berated us for denying the public,
	"the most cost-effective option in implementing a scheme".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/06; col. 1646.]
	Yet here is a Government who, against a barrage of criticism from all quarters—in the House and outside it—refused point blank to give us any reasonable estimates. Estimates for setting up costs and integration came there none. The excuse of commercial sensitivity was unsupported inside or, as far as I am aware, outside the House. I believe that that sensitivity was political.
	Constitutional proprieties cut both ways. It is fruitless to pretend that the post-1998 conventions are entirely clear. I reiterate that we, on this side of the House, do not accept the premise that if we stick to our guns on this issue we are behaving improperly or in a manner destined to damage the unwritten constitution, let alone in a wrecking spirit. Rather, we say, these are exceptional circumstances and not just because we are holding the Government to their plain commitment.
	I am unaware of any non-governmental, non-industry body of opinion in this country that is in favour of compulsion. Liberty, NO2ID cards, and Justice are among the numerous respected bodies implacably opposed to compulsory ID cards. It is also the case that effective compulsion vis-à-vis designated passports represents a volte-face less than a year after the election—a volte-face the Government deny is happening.
	Furthermore, I repeat: I believe that we are striking a blow for public trust in politics. If this Government can railroad this Bill through Parliament in the manner in which they are now trying to do, replete with double-speak and denial, it will be a bad day for this House and this Parliament. But we are not just sticking to our guns; having felt a zephyr of change—if I can call it that—on the Cross Benches last time, and in a genuine spirit of compromise, we have tabled this amending Motion today to allow the political parties, particularly Labour, to go to the country at the next general election, making it absolutely clear where they stand.
	The delay to the end of 2011 is scarcely catastrophic, given that in any event ID cards will not be issued until 2009. Furthermore, it should enable clarification of some of the many uncertainties—the universal uncertainty, one could say—attending this grandiose project, which would be of great benefit. Not least, it would enable the public to get up to speed with this Bill and its ramifications. If the Home Secretary himself does not understand his own Bill—and he demonstrated that again last week by continuing to pretend that the database for passports is the same as the database for ID cards—delay can do nothing but good.
	This is a citizens' amendment. There will be extra costs from it—but not unacceptable ones, I suggest, as was confirmed to me over the weekend by a very senior industry expert and by the LSE Identity Project, whose members did a short ancillary report on the potential cost implications, which I will place in the Library. To give noble Lords a flavour, I shall quote from that document:
	"In conclusion, the government has argued that provisions such as that in the Phillips amendment would be too costly because it would involve two databases operating at a minimal level, one for passports and one for voluntary ID cards. This issue can be resolved in a cost-effective and simple way by enrolling voluntary ID applicants onto the passport database and then issuing an ID card without the passport".
	And there is a lot more where that came from.
	Finally, the key issues here are the sort of society and state that we want. I suggest that we heed the warnings, not only from our own Constitution Committee, but also from the Information Commissioner, our national watchdog on issues precisely such as these. This is a tipping point, and I urge noble Lords once again to stand firm behind the principle of voluntarism, albeit for a limited period of five years. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "disagreement" to end and insert "and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22E and 22F in lieu, but do propose Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H in lieu.—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)

Lord Richard: My Lords—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for giving way. It is very rare that I seek to speak at the beginning of such debates on Bills, but I thought that it might be helpful during this interchange between the Houses if I made clear our position. That is the only reason why I have pressed ahead in this regard.
	I support Motion A1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and oppose government Motion A. Motion A1 offers the Government an honourable and reasonable compromise. In essence, it provides the opportunity for the Government to proceed immediately with a voluntary ID card and a national register regime related to passports. Significantly, it would also enable the Government to operate that on a compulsory basis, as they wish, from the end of the first Session of the next Parliament. That would enable preparations to proceed immediately, but it would require an explicit mandate before compulsion began. It would also enable any government who did not wish to impose a compulsory register and ID card scheme to repeal the Act in the first Session of the next Parliament.
	The amendments would mean that the Government got their Bill immediately, including potentially the power of compulsion, while upholding the constitutional position, which so many noble Lords have expressed, that something so far-reaching as making the freedom to travel conditional on being compulsorily enrolled on the national identity register, with all the implications that that has for the audit trail of our lives, and compulsorily having an identity card, should be put to the British people clearly and openly at a general election.
	The Opposition do not think, and have never thought, that the suggestion that a government should be held to their manifesto commitment on the Identity Cards Bill is in breach of the Salisbury convention. I set out our views on this matter, clearly and at some length, on 6 March, and I do not propose to test the patience of the House today by repeating those arguments. They stand for themselves, at col. 555 of Hansard, for those keen enough to look at them.
	As to the wider issue raised by the recommendation of the Wakeham commission—that this House should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of another place on issues of policy—I set out our agreement with that point on Wednesday of last week. I explained why such agreement does not preclude us from pressing the Government to reach a better solution to the problem of their own creation. Again, I shall not test the patience of the House by repeating what I said at col. 1232.
	Any normal person reading the manifesto commitment on this matter would interpret that commitment as, "When I renew my passport, I can choose whether I go on the register and have an ID card. And if I don't want to, I can choose not to". That is what "voluntary" would initially mean to anyone who read it.
	The Minister rejected our compromise proposal in her opening speech. She says that it would require the setting up of two databases, and queries the costs involved. But the Government have consistently refused to reveal the full costs of their scheme. Their amendment in lieu, which was accepted by this House on a previous occasion, still leaves the most significant parts of their assessment of costs hidden from public scrutiny. The Government's own system of compulsion by stealth surely also has complexity in its arrangements. It must enable those who do not need a passport to sign up for an ID card if they want one. There will have to be a record of those true volunteers, in addition to those who are compelled to have an ID card if they need to travel—for work, to visit their relatives, or to take a holiday.
	There is also still some confusion about whether the Government intend to adapt the passport system into the proposed national identity register—whether a separate NIR would ultimately replace the passport system or whether the two would co-exist. Whatever the decision, it is clear that the ID scheme would involve multiple systems, developed over time, to achieve multiple functions. The Minister said today that in accepting an amendment such as this, the Government would have to rewrite their business plan. But government policy on how they will run the scheme is still evolving. If I wanted to be difficult, I could say that they are making it up day by day. But I don't want to be difficult.
	Last week, Mr Burnham, the Minister in charge of the ID card scheme, revealed to the Social Market Foundation conference that the plans for the initial stage of the verification process have been significantly changed. Instead of a system whereby the verification of identity would be by electronic readers—which is what we have debated in this House, at all stages of the Bill—the Government have now announced that they plan to use the chip and PIN system first. Mr Burnham said that a PIN would be an intermediate way of checking the card. The Government now accept what many have been saying for some time: the cost of buying in biometric readers could be a significant burden on businesses, public service providers and government departments.
	It is clear that the Government have not yet determined the initial architecture of the IT system, and that may be no bad thing. If they are prepared to take time to consider more carefully an effective and reliable system of verification, I, for one, will not complain. It therefore means that there is still time to discuss just how the initial period of the scheme should operate.
	I was brought up to believe that one should stand up for what one believes is right and speak out against what one believes is wrong. That is simply what I have been trying to do in the debates on the Government's plans for compulsion by stealth. For all my faults, I am always an optimist. I believe that there are reasonable and honourable solutions to problems. It is right to take the time and the patience, and to act in good faith, to find those solutions. If the Minister continues to believe that she is unable to accept the amending Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I shall strongly support him in the Division Lobbies, because I think it is important for another place to have the opportunity to consider this new proposal. It is a sensible and honourable compromise, with something for both sides of the argument, and I hope that people on all sides will support it. I support Motion A1.

Lord Richard: My Lords, there is very little new to be said about the issue of compulsion or voluntarism and passports and identity cards. The issue has been flogged to death in this House and in the other place and has had another six lashes this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, so I do not propose to say anything about that bleeding corpse. People can decide what they want to do. However, I do want to say a word or two about the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the last time we looked at this and about what he has been saying in the short interim since then and this afternoon. He is trying to transform the discussion from one on identity cards to one of much greater constitutional significance. As I understand it, his argument—and it is right that this should be confronted by the House—is that disputes between the two Houses should be resolved by the use of the Parliament Act. That is a novel proposition on any view. I do not think that anybody has gone quite so far as the noble Lord in claiming that the Parliament Act is arbitrational in character. It is not. It is not there to produce a consensus between the two Houses; it is there to recognise and establish the supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords.
	Indeed, if one follows the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, his proposition would lead to the almost total sidelining of this House in relation to the passage of legislation. If there were no real discussion between the two Houses to resolve a contentious issue between them, all the Commons would have to do is sit there and insist, secure in the knowledge that, at the end of the day, it is bound to get its own way. I do not believe for a moment that that would be an improvement on the present situation. At least now there are some attempts to produce agreement. The Parliament Act is there as an ultimate deterrent, rarely, if ever, to be actually used.
	When I contemplated what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, had been saying, I was reminded of a tone poem by Richard Strauss—I am sure that some of your Lordships will be aware of it—called Till Eulenspiegel. The English translation of the title is, "His merry pranks and his jolly japes". I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been somewhat mischievous in the way that he has the approached this issue. But the fact is that an accident of parliamentary arithmetic in this House has elevated the Liberal Democrats to a position of unprecedented power.

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Richard: My Lords, it is true. With the two main parties approximately equal, the Liberal Democrats hold the balance. All they need to do is to wait until a disputed issue arises in the House, ally themselves with the main opposition party and thereby create constitutional chaos. That cannot be right.
	We have to begin to produce a sensible de facto working relationship between the two Houses. That ought to contain a proper disputes-resolution procedure, rather more formal than the present ones. Until now, it has been unnecessary because this House has had a somewhat restrained view of its powers and responsibilities. How often have we heard it said—we heard it said again this afternoon—that the function of the House of Lords is to make the House of Commons think again? We have sent this issue back three times. Three times the House of Commons has thought, and three times it has returned it to us. Surely to goodness that is enough.
	The Conservative Opposition have had experience of government. They know that the McNally thesis would make the legislative process virtually unworkable. The fact is that the British constitution works by a combination of accepted formal conventions and many informal understandings. After all, what else are the usual channels? To tear up those conventions and deny those understandings is a very dangerous course indeed. Of course Parliament can do it if it wishes, but I am bound to say that an arm's-length relationship between the two Houses and an over-reliance on the Parliament Act would not be an improvement on what we have at present.
	So, for constitutional reasons, it is important that this House now accepts the will of the other place. I do not expect the Liberal Democrats to appreciate that—when all is said and done, their chances of actually forming a government are fairly remote—but I do expect the Conservative Opposition to appreciate it. They should realise—indeed, they probably now do—that the time has now come. I really think they should vote accordingly.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate until I heard the speech that we have just heard. It was remarkable for the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to turn the attack on the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for diverting the debate away from the merits of the case to the constitutional issues. I sat through the previous debate and I well recall the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Richard, rising to their feet to say that they had no intention of discussing the merits of the case because, after all, that had been flogged to death—as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, put it today. They wanted to address the major constitutional issue that was before the House. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, intervened later in the debate to respond to that approach from those two noble Lords.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong in his chronology. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made an early speech. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke. I spoke after him, not before.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the fact is that this whole diversion was started by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I think that he will confirm that it was he who said that we should not be debating the merits of the Identity Cards Bill and that he had no intention of debating it for exactly the reason given a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He felt that it had been adequately dealt with. We then got into a debate on the constitution.
	Those of us who have been in this House for some time remember that whenever we get to this point where the two Houses disagree and the Benches opposite look as if they are losing the argument, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and probably the noble Lord, Lord Peston, rise to their feet in exactly this way and say, "Well, of course, we don't want to discuss the merits of the issue. What we want to discuss is the major constitutional issue". However, there can be no doubt that when there is a conflict with the other House, it is perfectly within the constitutional arrangements for noble Lords to seek to find a compromise and an alternative solution that might be acceptable without going as far as the use of the Parliament Act. That appears to me to be what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has attempted to do today.
	The Minister was commendably brief today. She made three points. She said that if we went down this road, it would introduce uncertainties into the Government's planning; that it would mean there being two separate processes, although she acknowledged that they were probably technically feasible; and that it would mean reworking the business plan with some cost consequences. If that is the Government's case, we are confronted with a choice between the Government keeping an election manifesto promise or breaking it, and a choice between personal freedom and some uncertainty for the Government. I have no doubt at all that, given those choices, we should go for personal freedom and the individual.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, when this matter was last before the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said to us that there was a straight conflict between this House and the other place; that there was no possibility of a compromise; and, therefore, that this House must bow. I was impressed by that argument and I agreed with her that there was no possibility of a compromise. On that basis, I and, I believe, a number of others on these Benches abstained. We could not bring ourselves to vote for compulsory ID cards under the guise of pseudo-voluntarism, but we took the Minister's point about conflict. We now have before us an apparent reasonable compromise. If people think it is not really a compromise at all but merely a smokescreen put up by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with his customary skill, to make the same point as before, then the Minister was right. But if it is in fact a reasonable compromise, then the point that the Minister made last time goes, and it is wholly right that this compromise should go back to the other place for them to think again.
	The only real reason the Minister gave why this was not a practical compromise, albeit a compromise that the Government do not like—the Government would always rather have their own way than compromise; everyone would—was that it was likely to cost somewhat more. I am perfectly happy to see, when one goes out with one's passport application, a sign that says, "You can now have your identity card, and if you do it all in this one moment, the fee will be so-and-so. If, on the other hand, you don't do them both together and you have to apply for an identity card in the future, either because you need one or because it is compulsory, the fee for that will be x. The fee for the present passport application is y, and x and y will add up to more than the joint fee you are now going to pay". So there is economic pressure on someone to decide to go the cheaper way. Although I do not terribly like identity cards, I do not feel strongly enough about them to worry about £25, or however much it may be.
	Surely it is not an adequate reason for saying that this is not a compromise to which serious consideration should be given merely to say that it will cost somewhat more—no one knows how much—and that people should not be given the choice of paying that much more rather than being driven to identity cards by compulsion under the thin guise of voluntarism.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the last time the Minister spoke at the Dispatch Box on this subject, she put down a challenge to your Lordships' House, which perhaps she will allow me to take up. She put the question, "What's new?". In other words, she was saying: why do we continue with our obstinate and futile opposition to the Government's will? I would like to try and explain.
	What is new is that we have now had a chance, which we did not have before, to inspect the Government's responses to our original objections. The Minister said that there had been—I think this is the phrase she used—an "infelicitous use of language", and that that was the explanation for any misleading impression that had been created by the Government's manifesto. But then, in another place, the Home Secretary said that no misleading impression had been created because passports were in fact voluntary, in a bizarre throwback to some sort of socialist past. I think his explanation was that foreign travel was some sort of luxury for rich people. So first there was a misleading impression in your Lordships' House; then, in another place, there was not. Finally, when the Bill came back to your Lordships' House again, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, uncharacteristically, that it did not make any difference whether a misleading impression had been created, because no one reads manifestos and what the Government write down.
	It is completely unacceptable, in this House of all Houses of Parliament, to be told that an infelicitous use of language is not a major matter. We in this House are prepared, with pride, to debate for hours or days an amendment that might read "delete 'a', insert 'the'", and we know why we do it. It is the very essence of what we are here for.
	On the question of whether passports are voluntary, I would like to present to the Minister a list which has nothing to do with foreign travel as some sort of optional luxury. There are occasions when one third of the entire population of Britain—the 15 million people over the age of 17 who do not have a driving licence—are required to show a passport. It is not a voluntary act at all when they apply for a mortgage, purchase a property, rent a property, visit a prison, get divorced, teach children, become an executor of a will or collect a bus pass. In a recent case, the daughter of a pensioner wanted to collect her mother's pension because she was seriously ill. The daughter went to the post office to collect it and was told she would not be able to without producing her own passport.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has just put forward the most magnificent arguments in favour of identity cards. All these purposes, which he so brilliantly described—because he is such a great communicator—are currently available only to people with passports. When we get this legislation through they will be available to a far wider range of people. It is wonderful.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Home Secretary said in terms in another place that the holding of a passport was a voluntary activity—now—for British citizens. I have read out a list in which British citizens who do not wish to travel abroad for a luxury holiday find it impossible to carry out absolutely basic tasks without a passport. Therefore it is completely incorrect of him to have said that a passport is a voluntary possession.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would not want to mislead the House. Of course passports are the preferred means of identity but, in fact, one is not obliged to have one. That is why 20 per cent of our people, many of whom are among the poor and the old, do not have one and constantly find difficulty in that fact.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I think we can settle on the fact that it is not possible for a British citizen to carry out basic tasks in this country without a passport, which the Home Secretary said was a luxury for foreign travel. I will leave it there.
	In closing perhaps I could also answer a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He said, in similar terms to the Minister, "If not now, when?". In other words, when would we give in? How long would this go on? I would like to say, speaking for myself and not just out of my respect and affection for my noble friends on the Front Bench, as far as I am concerned, I believe that the terms of etiquette of our House are that we receive a message from the House of Commons. What we are doing here today is sending a message back, and I personally will stop what is regarded as the obstinate and futile opposition when I hear the message back, "Message received and understood". Here is the message: no government should be allowed to insult the intelligence of the public in this way. No government should be allowed to show such disrespect for the English language and no government should be allowed to add to the cynicism of the public instead of reducing it. That is why I am going to join my noble friends, distinguished Cross-Bench Peers and Liberal Democrat Peers to defeat the Government again. I will do so with my head held high.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I think that everyone in this House will agree that the question of whether to send this message back to the Commons for a fourth time is a very serious matter indeed. We need to reflect on whether we are doing this as a matter of major fundamental principle or of party politics. I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to this vote being about the sort of society we want to live in. He is clearly nailing his flag to the mast of a fundamental major principle.
	I know that many noble Lords on all Benches are voting on the basis of major principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also nailed her flag to the mast of major principle by saying that she was standing up for what she believed was right. I regret to say that I do not believe her. I believe that she is pursuing her goal on the basis of party politics, using a party-political position—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, who has not taken part in previous proceedings on this Bill—apart from one intervention last week in the interchange between the Houses—has called my honesty into question. I object.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I hear it remarked that there is nothing wrong with party politics. I entirely agree. I made that assertion because the Leader of the Official Opposition, Lord Strathclyde, gave the game away last Wednesday. He said:
	"I am entirely satisfied that there are no Salisbury convention implications if the House were to return this small point back to another place".—[Official Report, 15/3/06; col. 1245.]
	Thus it is on a small point that the Opposition are developing their notion of standing up for what is right. It is on this "small point" that the Opposition wish us to return the Bill to the Commons for a fourth time. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with pursuing party-political advantage or objectives. Yet when a party-political objective is pursued in such a manner over a "small point", it becomes disreputable.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as far as I am concerned this has nothing whatever to do with party politics at this stage. I hope that your Lordships listened with some care to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on this Motion, which proposes that in the present circumstances the right thing for your Lordships' House is to say to the other place that this Bill has become increasingly controversial. The public are increasingly worried; it would be an excellent idea if compulsion did not take place until after the next general election. This is the best amendment that we have had during these recent proceedings. It is absolutely practical and democratic.
	We know from the polls—and I suspect that most of your Lordships will know from personal experience—that the public, as they hear more about the meaning for them of being on the register, are getting worried. They are beginning to understand what the Bill means for them. I said at Second Reading that I thought the public would eventually be very worried about being on the register, and I am sure that they are getting more worried now. The Guardian was right this morning to say that your Lordships' House should stand firm. Looking at the amendment and given the present circumstances, I hope that we will vote for it. That is the right thing to do and the House of Commons would be wise indeed to accept that.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I want to speak to this amending Motion and, first, to confirm something that I said in the debate last week. I had not intended to speak but spoke from memory about the Parliament Act. I was asked afterwards whether what I had said was correct. I have rechecked and confirmed that this Bill, if it were to be passed under the Parliament Act, would be the first major manifesto or programme Bill to be thus dealt with since 1949—and, in some readings, since 1914. I will not go through the history of the Parliament Act, but that is the seriousness of the decision which your Lordships' House—including the Official Opposition—will have to take if we can find no compromise. Motion A1 goes much further than the Parliament Act and, in a way, compounds the importance of the issue.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the matter of the Parliament Act, I would like to deal with the matter that he raised the other day. I am of the view that there would be nothing wrong if this dispute had to be resolved by use of the Parliament Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that it would be quite wrong for that Act to be used in the case of a government Bill and that it should be used only when there was a free vote.

Lord Carter: No, my Lords.

Lord Waddington: Oh yes he did, my Lords. He quoted example after example where the Parliament Act had been used only when there was a free vote on the issue before the House. I remind the noble Lord of the War Crimes Bill, which I remember clearly because I had to speak for the government from the Front Bench. On that occasion, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead made a most spirited speech from the Liberal Benches, in which he said that it was nonsense to say that the Parliament Act should be used when there was a free vote; that the only legitimate case for the use of the Parliament Act was when there was an issue of great party-political moment between the government and the opposition; that the Parliament Act was originally passed to resolve a government policy matter of great moment; and that it was wrong for it to be used in any other circumstances. So you pays your money and you takes your choice. My personal view is that the Parliament Act can be used in either circumstance, as is appropriate.

Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord had waited, I was going to say that this House certainly has the power to force the use of the Parliament Act. It is there to deliver the primacy of the Commons. I also said—and it is a matter of fact and is nothing to do with free votes—that if we used the Parliament Act on this Bill, it would be the first major manifesto programme Bill passed under the Parliament Act since 1949. In fact the noble Lord was actually agreeing with me.
	I should point out that there have been three votes on this issue—once on Report, and twice during ping-pong. The most interesting aspect of those votes, apart from the fact that the government Benches consistently outvoted the Conservative Benches on each occasion, was the Cross-Bench vote—three to one against the Government on Report; three to one against them in the first ping-pong vote; and last week 24 Contents and 25 Not-Contents. It seems that at least some Cross-Benchers are beginning to think that enough is enough. Is the same thought occurring to some former Members of the Commons who are sitting opposite—former Leaders, Chief Whips, Cabinet Ministers and others?
	Today's amending Motion goes much further than the Parliament Act in the delay that it will provide for. There would be three Parliaments and two general elections before this part of the Bill could become law. In fact the delay is much longer. It would be better for the Government to force the use of the Parliament Act, because they would get the Bill that they wanted much quicker.
	No government are supposed to incur any public expense on a measure in a Bill until that Bill receives a Second Reading in the Commons, which would be the case if this Bill were accepted. Would the Government be right to spend all the money they needed to on planning, IT work and the rest if there was a possibility that the Bill could be repealed if the Conservatives won the next election? Is that a correct use of public funds?
	A convention of this House, which is at least as important as the Salisbury convention, states that the elected government are entitled to have their business considered without unreasonable delay. That is linked with the other convention that the primacy of the Commons, as expressed through the Parliament Act, should finally prevail. This Motion drives a coach and horses through both conventions.
	The whole debate we have had on this—the three rounds of ping-pong—underlines the importance of the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the relationship between the two Houses.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the situation now has changed. We are now offered a reasonable compromise that has not as yet, as far as I am aware, been debated in the other place or in our House. That, for me, changes the whole scene. I admit that I have so far abstained because I held a view about comity between the Houses, which—the noble Lord talks about political allegiance—was not exactly the view held by my Front Bench. I do not hold the view that this is a small point. I hold the view that now we are faced with an avenue to freedom. Freedom for the individual ought to be supported, and I hope that it would be expected and respected by another place as a reasonable suggestion for them to consider. For the very first time I shall support the Motion.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I do not know where the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has been canvassing opinion when she says that identity cards are becoming less popular. I took the opportunity this weekend of canvassing opinion at Tynecastle Park, where there was a large number of people. We were there for other purposes but, in quiet moments, I took the opportunity of discussing identity cards. I know it may seem a little eccentric, but I got some very positive responses to this issue.
	The astonishing intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was the most compelling argument in favour of identity cards that I have heard in this whole debate. With no disrespect to the Minister, or anyone on these Benches, it was a powerful intervention. It also reminded me that, when the Tories were elected, it was probably not the specific wording in their manifesto that convinced the electorate, but those wonderful posters that turned the tide. What was the name of the company that produced them?
	My real point is in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who I got to know extremely well on the Joint Committee on the Charities Bill when I was in the Commons. I developed great respect and admiration for his ingenuity and cleverness. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, have said, "This is a compromise; this is something new". Let us be straightforward and honest about exactly what is happening. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being party-political—I have been even accused of being party-political since I came in here—it is perfectly respectable but we ought to be open about it.
	Over the past few weeks, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, using his ingenuity, has come up with Motion D1, then Motion A1, then another Motion A1. Over the weekend, by some process of osmosis, suddenly the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, thinks, "Hey, that's a good idea. I'll get all my forces, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to support that wonderful amending Motion". So we had Motion A1, then another Motion A1. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said he would support it on this occasion. I say to the noble Viscount that this will go back to the House of Commons, which will say no even more resoundingly. Next time we meet, I can guarantee that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will come up with an even more ingenious amendment. Then we will be faced with yet another opportunity. That is not the reality of what is happening. The reality is that the Liberal Democrats in particular—supported, to some extent, for other reasons, by the Tories—have always wanted to completely scupper this Bill. They have looked for opportunity after opportunity and they will continue to do so. The sooner non-political people here realise what is going on in the political parties, the better.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he withdraw his remark about people on these Back Benches wishing to scupper the Bill?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I certainly will not. I represented Alloway for a long time and was hoping to include it in my title, but the noble Lord got in before me and I have great respect for him in that. The Liberal Democrats, in particular, are opposing this measure for one or two reasons and other people are opposing it for different reasons. The Conservatives are doing so for reasons relating to their opposition: not because they particularly want to oppose some parts of the Bill but because they want to undermine the position of the present Government.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is my second time round this circuit and I had not expected to intervene in this debate. As it is only my second time round, I am bound to say that I have heard nothing new this afternoon, with the exception of the words in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and what he said immediately after moving it.
	Behind all this we are dealing with a very simple fact: for electoral convenience, the Government put certain words in their manifesto and now, for administrative convenience, they have set those words aside. I suggest to the House that it would be in everyone's best interests if the debate were now wound up and the Government were allowed to parade their lack of shame through the Lobbies yet again.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. I was tempted to my feet last time by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I decided to speak again after hearing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who berated me, rather echoing what the Home Secretary said in another place last week, about what I had said when I last spoke. I used the phrase "a small point" with a hint of irony that does not translate itself well on to the page. It is a small point in the sense of the amendments but it has substantial implications. I also went on to say that there was very little room for compromise. So imagine my surprise when my noble friend Lady Anelay said that she and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, had found a way forward with a compromise, which I find it incredible the Government have not reached out and accepted. If the noble Baroness were to say in a few moments that she accepted the Motion, the Bill could have Royal Assent by tomorrow evening, the Government would get their Bill, they could get their machinery going for the ID card scheme and there would be no problem at all.
	There is another advantage in accepting the Motion. The Government have said that, according to their own figures, this scheme will not begin to roll out until 2009. The Motion says that it should not be made compulsory until 2011. Do any of us really believe that the Government will meet their target of 2009? There is also an advantage for this House in proposing the amendments. We will have shown the Government that they should stick to their manifesto—an important point of principle in this House. I urge the Government to think very carefully, and perhaps the noble Baroness can say the words that we want to hear.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm for me that the import of what both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said is that, if they were so fortunate as to be returned as the government of this country, they would intend to repeal this Bill?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the Bill had been put into effect by the next general election.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is a very important question. I took the import of what the noble Lord said to be that he and his party would propose to scrap the Bill because of their implacable hostility to the lack of freedom and the need for compulsion. It is important for us to understand the position of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in relation to this matter because we are contemplating spending taxpayers' money to put in place a system, which, if the noble Lord's party were so fortunate as to be returned would not be of any utility to the people of this country. This Government have to know the true position.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot understand why the noble Baroness feels the need to know at all. She knows of our opposition to this legislation and to the whole principle of ID cards. What our position will be at the next election, I cannot tell. Apart from anything else, the noble Baroness cannot tell us when the next general election will take place.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I am very much torn. I do not think that the issue should involve the Parliament Act—it does not seem to be that kind of thing. At the same time, there is an issue of personal freedom to which we and the other place should have some regard. I do not know how much it will cost. We are told that not making registration compulsory for those who apply for a designated document would add to the cost, but we do not know by how much.
	The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, seems to be a case of—to adapt St Augustine—give me compulsion, but not yet. I suggest that we should look at another form of compromise, if we have an opportunity, which would change the balance in the provisions in question. Instead of requiring the applicants for designated documents to opt in to the national identity register, we would enable those who really did not want to go on to the register on grounds of conscience or personal freedom to opt out. If the Government want to make a penalty on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that is for them to consider. That seems to be a compromise that would reduce the costs. If the estimates are true, most people will want to have identity cards, and such an amendment would preserve the principle of personal freedom.
	If the amendment is voted for this afternoon and is then rejected by the other place, the next time round I should like to offer draft amendments that would provide for opting out instead of being compelled to opt in.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that we have clarity on one issue, which is that nothing much has changed. It has been suggested that the proposal in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is a compromise. I say as clearly as I can that it is not. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded us that, on 15 March, he said:
	"I must say that the ability to find a compromise between 'may' and 'must' is relatively limited".—[Official Report, 15/3/06; col. 1245.]
	That is where we still are. The import of the noble Lord's amendment is "may", but the response from the other place is "must". That is the compromise that your Lordships are asked to consider. Do you want "may", or will you accede to the insistence of the other place on the word "must"? There is no compromise between the two. It is simply a matter of choice. Your Lordships have an opportunity to choose.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it is not a compromise between "may" and "must" to say that you must in the future, but that for the next five years, you may? That is obviously a compromise.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is because this Bill, in this Parliament, asks both Houses to allow the "must" to happen now—not after the next election and not in 2012, but now. That is the answer to which the Commons wish to have a response. We have debated whether it could be postponed, because it is inherent in the "may" that this matter could be looked at again. Your Lordships will remember that we are bringing back legislation in the future to consider when this scheme should be made compulsory for everyone. At that stage there will be a consideration of those issues. Until then, the question is whether these documents need to be designated. Yes or no? The Government say yes. Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrats say no.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in a very principled way, is very clear. He is implacably opposed to introducing this provision. Make no mistake, the noble Lord does not pretend to be anything else. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are in a somewhat interesting position. The response from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—and, by implication, from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns—is that they do not know what their position will be. It is a matter of wait and see, very much like most of the policies coming from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition—"We cannot tell you what we may decide by the next election". However, this Government are responsible for bringing in this procedure. We must consider how to spend the taxpayer's money now. We are responsible for whether things will be scrapped. That is a proper consideration for us.
	The Commons did discuss this issue. This is not compulsion by stealth, as has been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The Commons discussed the mandatory link between designated documents and ID cards at great length. The issue was discussed extensively in Committee in the Commons, and relevant amendments were debated because the Bill was lost at the time of the general election and had to be reintroduced. Again, the mandatory link between designated documents and ID cards was extensively debated in Committee in the Commons and again at Report stage in the Commons. At every stage, it was made clear that it was intended to designate British passports and immigration documents. The issue has been discussed a further three times in the Commons in response to Lords Amendments. The Bill has been totally unequivocal on this issue at all stages.
	Now is the time for us to decide what we want to do about this. On the last occasion we were reminded that the other place occasionally has the temerity to disagree with us. That temerity is based on the fact that they have the mandate. There sometimes comes a time when we do not agree with them, and then we continue not to agree with them. But we give way because that is our role. We give way because our role is to question and to test, but not to overrule.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is not the role of this House to give way. The role of this House is to consider legislation, to amend it as necessary, and, if it believes in its amendments, to stick to them. After that, if this House continues to believe that its amendments are sound and reasonable, it has every right to stick to them. It is the role of the House of the Commons, if it continues to disagree with a Lords Amendment, to go to the Parliament Act. If that is not the case, then this House is no more than a debating Chamber. Does the noble Baroness not understand that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in the years that I have had the privilege to stand at this Dispatch Box, I have learnt many things about this House and its ability to change legislation, to improve legislation and to ask the other place to think again. I have also learnt that this House has a pool of wisdom into which it dips and usually it knows when enough is enough. It is for this House to decide whether today we have reached a position where the House says, "Enough is enough". We have an opportunity to go on and on and on. The advantage is that my period at the Dispatch Box will, I hope, get shorter and shorter and shorter, and maybe we will do this the quicker. For now, we have had a full debate. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, I have not tried to weary your Lordships with all the substantive reasons why we should not go down this road, with which I have wearied your Lordships on the past three occasions. I have taken those as read. I invite the House to say that, as the House of Commons has spoken so clearly, we—not being deaf—have heard it, and we are now content for its amendments to stand and ours to rest.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate. It has covered some weighty matters. But I must immediately make plain why, despite the, as ever, articulate and persuasive words of the noble Baroness, I disagree with her flatly. She said that Bill after Bill has made clear that this is voluntary. We are not talking about Bills before the last general election; we are talking about the Government's manifesto last year. It really is playing Humpty Dumpty to pretend that the expression "rolled out on a voluntary basis in connection with passports" can conceivably be construed as compulsory. As I tried to indicate two stages ago, the word "voluntary" qualifies ID cards, not passports. I did not want to weary the House with the matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has put it very succinctly. The first point of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was that this is a manifesto Bill. This is manifestly not a manifesto Bill. That is the point.

Lord Carter: My Lords, all I meant is that it is a Bill that was mentioned in the manifesto.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it was indeed mentioned in the manifesto, and how was it mentioned? It was mentioned as voluntary, not compulsory.
	I have a complete sense of the superiority of the other place. I think we are lucky to be here at all, and we try to do a good job. We are subservient to the elected House. However, when I see the elected House coming to this place and saying to the country that that manifesto commitment does not mean voluntary, it means compulsory or quasi-compulsory, then I believe—and I hope that noble Lords will not think I am being pompous—that we have a duty to say, "No, it doesn't". Surely noble Lords will accept that we live in times when the public's sense of the probity and honour of the Houses of Parliament is not at its highest. Issues are swirling around—I am certainly not going to make political capital of them—that are causing great angst within this Palace and beyond. I have stuck to my guns principally because I think it thoroughly disreputable and, I am afraid to say, dishonest of us to pretend that "voluntary" meant "compulsory".
	This amendment is not the sort of cosmetic amendment that the Commons put back to us; this is a genuine amendment. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this would take the matter beyond the Parliament Act. Of course that is so. We are trying to reach a compromise that will mean that the Government will not exercise the Parliament Act. However, as many have said, the first ID card is not to be issued until, on best estimates, 2009. We know jolly well what happens in this country when huge computer schemes are put before us. We also know why we have never been told the costs. It would be the greatest stone about any government's neck to dare to estimate the setting-up and integration costs of this uniquely massive scheme.
	I shall not weary your Lordships any more, except to say that I am extremely grateful for the contributions of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. I am only too happy to put heads together with him if we get this vote through today; there will be no chance to do so if we do not. I do not pretend that this is the best amendment available, but I sincerely and genuinely tabled this as a compromise amendment. The issues that underlie it are of great purport and importance. We are at a tipping point. The surveillance and compulsion being thrust little by little and drip by drip on the public of this country need to stop. This is it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said Motion (A1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 211; Not-Contents, 175.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion A, as amended, agreed to.
	Bill returned to the Commons with amendments.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Enforcement powers in connection with wildlife]:

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 128:
	Page 61, line 34, leave out "for the purposes of ascertaining whether" and insert "if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may find there evidence that"

Earl Peel: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 128 and speaking to Amendment No. 129, perhaps I shall be allowed to go back a little. Clause 44 gives various enforcement powers to the new pesticide inspectors who are charged with enforcing the new pesticides offence under Clause 43. In Committee, the Government accepted that their initial idea of giving these new pesticide inspectors the power to enter premises to ascertain whether an offence had been committed was disproportionate. Accordingly, the Minister introduced an amendment requiring pesticide inspectors to have reasonable grounds to suspect that he may find evidence of the offence before entering. Clause 51 and Schedule 5 significantly extend the powers of wildlife inspectors, in the same way as Clause 44 gave powers to the new pesticide inspectors, so I see no logical reason why wildlife inspectors should not be subjected to the same constraints as the Government have put on pesticide inspectors.
	I moved an amendment in Committee to that effect and, although the wording was slightly different, the intention was precisely the same. The Minister objected to that amendment on the grounds that the criminal investigation function and the licence monitoring function, which are both the responsibility of wildlife inspectors, are so closely linked that they cannot be separated. I find that hard to believe, so I am looking for an assurance that wildlife inspectors will not go on what are known as "fishing trips" when dealing with wildlife crimes, as opposed to carrying out their duties under the licensing enforcement—which I appreciate is a totally different matter. Furthermore, I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate clearly how the wildlife inspector's role will work in relation to the police when dealing with wildlife crimes. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we support my noble friend in these amendments. The Minister in his letter of 7 March outlined to us that there are two different types of inspectors at present, one of which can deal with the group 1 offences and the other with group 2 offences. My noble friend said on another occasion that it was impossible to distinguish between the two. Could the Minister clarify that point?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl's amendments are similar, so I shall deal with them together.
	Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 seek to introduce a requirement for a wildlife inspector to have grounds for suspecting that he may find there evidence that an offence is being, or has been, committed on premises before exercising powers to enter and inspect those premises. The noble Earl has made it clear, on this occasion and previously, that he has no desire to restrict wildlife inspectors when exercising their powers in relation to licences and registrations. However, it is not a simple case of separating out the powers of wildlife inspectors into those which deal specifically with licences and those which do not. That is because all the powers under Sections 18B(1) and 18D(1) have relevance to an inspector's ability effectively to monitor licences.
	For example, if we look at the powers in relation to group 1 offences, Section 18B(1)(a) is needed to ensure that we can monitor situations where no licence has been applied for, where activities may be outside the scope of a licence—for example, where they are outside the licence purpose—or where we need to monitor whether licence conditions are being complied with.
	It is important to remember that the breach of a licence condition is not in itself an offence under the 1981 Act; rather, the breach may mean that the person concerned cannot rely on the licence that he has obtained because he is not within its terms. Therefore, when wildlife inspectors are entering land for the purpose of checking compliance with licences, the relevant offence which may have been committed will be that in the substantive provisions—for example, an offence under Section 1, which deals with killing wild birds. This is one of the reasons why Section 18B(1)(a) has been so drafted. Section 18B(1)(b)(i) is needed so that we can verify licence applications, and Section 18B(1)(b)(ii) is needed so that we can check licensed activities where the licence itself has expired to ensure that any licence condition has been complied with.
	It will not always be the case that breach of a licence condition after the licence has expired will be a breach of the substantive provision to which the licence relates. Entry could therefore not always be obtained in these circumstances under Section 18B(1)(a)—hence the need for this separate power.
	Let me give an example in practice, where a licence has been obtained to destroy a sand martin habitat. One of the conditions of that licence may be to replace the restored habitat. It is important that the replacement habitat is maintained and not simply destroyed just a few months after the licence has expired. Under Section 18B(1)(b)(ii), wildlife inspectors would be able to gain entry to land after the expiry of the original licence to ensure that the replacement habitat condition to which the licence was subject has been complied with.
	The same reasoning applies in relation to group 2 offences and the powers set out in Section 18D. In all these cases, an offence may not have been committed and one may not be suspected. The inspector is therefore not expecting to find evidence of an offence. He is, in effect, randomly inspecting to see that the conditions of licences are being fulfilled.
	I should also mention that the proposed powers in Schedule 5 are consistent with the wording of the current powers of wildlife inspectors, which are set out in Section 19ZA of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and which were introduced by the CROW Act 2000. Perhaps I can illustrate this by a specific example. Under Section 19ZA(3)(a) of the 1981 Act, a wildlife inspector can enter and inspect any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence under Section 6, Section 9(5) or Section 13(2) is being, or has been, committed on those premises. Although under the Bill these become group 2 offences and the power will be found in the new Section 18D(1)(a) of the 1981 Act, the power itself remains unchanged. It is this power that Amendment No. 129 seeks to restrict. I remind the House that the power has existed for five years and there is no evidence that it is being abused.
	The powers of the wildlife inspectors under the Bill depend on whether the offence is group 1 or group 2. Group 1 offences deal mainly with animals, birds and plants that are found in the wild and of which it is rare for any person to have possession or control. These offences relate to Sections 1, 5, 9(1), 9(2), 9(4), 11, 13(1) and 14ZA of the 1981 Act. Wildlife inspectors currently have no enforcement powers for these offences. Group 2 offences may relate to licensing of captive, ringed and registered birds and the sale of certain animals and plants, and are found in other sections of the 1981 Act. Wildlife inspectors already have enforcement powers in relation to those offences under the 1981 Act. These powers remain largely unchanged by the Bill.
	We fully recognise that the Bill seeks to extend the powers of wildlife inspectors to deal with group 1 offences and four other Acts. However, as I have explained, we believe that such powers are needed to allow a wildlife inspector to effectively monitor licences. I want to make it abundantly clear on the record that the role of a wildlife inspector is not the general enforcement of wildlife laws. That role is performed quite rightly by the police, so if there is suspicion of an offence per se, in the normal circumstances it would be for the police to investigate, not a wildlife inspector. Wildlife inspectors are involved in the enforcement of activities in connection with licences and registration.
	If, during a routine inspection, a wildlife inspector found evidence of an offence, the matter would be referred to the police or Defra investigation services, who are fully trained to carry out criminal investigations. I can give the noble Earl the assurance that he seeks in the strongest possible terms: wildlife inspectors will not engage in fishing trips, but will undertake visits for legitimate reasons in connection with licensing and registration. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, as one who was involved in the 1981 Act, I cannot understand what the difference is. Surely, we covered everything in the 1981 Act, which has been very effective since it was enacted. Why do we need to make these changes?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we need to change the powers of wildlife inspectors so far as group 1 offences are concerned because they have insufficient power at the moment to monitor whether licence conditions are properly met.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving such a comprehensive reply to my amendment. Given that he has made it abundantly clear that fishing trips will not be on the agenda for wildlife inspectors and that responsibility for dealing with matters of wildlife crime will lie firmly with the police, I have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
	[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 130:
	Page 67, line 20, at end insert—
	"PART 2A
	CODES OF PRACTICE
	11A (1) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) issue a code of practice in connection with any of the provisions of sections 18A to 18F of the 1981 Act (including any of those provisions as applied by Part 2 of this Schedule), and
	(b) revise or replace such a code.
	(2) An inspector must have regard to any relevant provision of a code when discharging any function under any of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
	(3) But an inspector's failure to have regard to any provision of a code does not make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings.
	(4) A code—
	(a) is admissible in evidence in any proceedings, and
	(b) must be taken into account by a court in any case in which it appears to the court to be relevant."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 56 [Effect of failure to serve certain notices in connection with SSSIs]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 130A:
	Page 22, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) This section shall apply to existing sites."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord helped to resolve the missed owner/occupier issue with regard to SSSIs. However, that will come into force only once the NERC Bill is enacted and will assist only with the new sites that are notified. It is very welcome but will not address the historic issue of missed owners and occupiers within the 4,000 plus existing sites. At Hansard cols. 74 and 75 on 27 February, the noble Lord undertook to consider making Amendment No. 301 retrospective. I hope that he has considered the matter and has something optimistic to tell the House this afternoon. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having tabled this amendment. We are sympathetic towards the principle behind it, but we see a problem with the wording. We will return with a government amendment at Third Reading which we hope will meet the point that she rightly made.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's positive reply. Can he give me any hint of what is unsatisfactory in the wording of the amendment?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I think it is a question of enforcement as regards existing sites. They will be covered by the Act, but if the wording of the amendment were to be adopted, there is a danger of enforcement being brought against them. That is our objection in broad terms.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 131:
	Before Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
	"CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATING NATIONAL PARKS
	(1) In section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c. 97) (criteria for designating National Parks), after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Natural England may—
	(a) when applying subsection (2)(a) in relation to an area, take into account its wildlife and cultural heritage, and
	(b) when applying subsection (2)(b) in relation to that area, take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public."
	(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) applies for the purposes of the confirmation or variation on or after the day on which this section comes into force of orders made before that day as it applies for the purposes of the confirmation or variation of orders made on or after that day."

Lord Bach: My Lords, this group of amendments arises from a recent High Court judgment that is known as the Meyrick judgment. Government Amendment No. 131 will restore to the legislation the meaning which the Government and others had always understood it to have prior to the judgment being given. Amendment No. 133 is a purely stylistic change consequent on Amendment No. 131. Since Amendment No. 131 will introduce a new clause before Clause 58 which contains the first and full reference to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, subsequent references need do no more than refer to the "1949 Act". We do not need to worry about Amendment No. 133.
	Amendments Nos. 132 and 170, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would consolidate the Meyrick interpretation by enshrining it in primary legislation. I can inform the House that my department has just learnt that it has been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Meyrick case. Lord Justice Keene stated:
	"The grounds are properly arguable and, in any event, raise issues of importance which ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal".
	But let us put that on one side for the moment and deal with the issues in Parliament.
	The Meyrick judgment dealt with the criteria in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 that are used when deciding whether land should be designated as a national park. By treating the land in dispute in isolation from the rest of the New Forest in which it lies, the judgment was quite at odds with what the 1949 Act intended and with how it has been applied over the years. For example, on the natural beauty criterion, Meyrick stated in relation to the land in dispute,
	"well-maintained historic parkland providing the setting for a grade 1 listed building, and well-ordered dairy fields of dairy farms would seem to be the antithesis of naturalness".
	Yet we know that such land features strongly in the existing national parks. One need look no further than the Chatsworth estate for an example of an historic house and parkland forming an integral part of a national park—in that case, the Peak District. The Chatsworth estate does not sit in isolation, but forms part of the extensive tract of diverse countryside, recognised for its natural beauty, that is the Peak District. And one need look no further than the Council for National Parks website to see that farmland of all kinds—not just dairy land—makes up an important part of our existing national parks. Agricultural land makes up 54 per cent of the Peak District National Park, for example.
	Without further case law, one cannot be sure how far the ramifications of the Meyrick judgment might extend. But if parkland and dairy farms are not to meet the natural beauty test, what of arable land or woodlands, or indeed any land that has an orderly or managed appearance? If all those elements previously thought to form part of natural beauty—flora, fauna, geology, physiography—are now to be stripped out of the definition, what does that do to our concept of a national park?
	I could bring forward evidence in support of our claim that the Meyrick judgment is not consistent with established practice, by which I mean the method used to settle the boundaries of the eight national parks in England and three in Wales that were designated in the years following the 1949 Act. That Act implemented the 1947 report of the National Parks Committee, which recommended the areas that should be considered for designation and the arrangements for their administration. It included eight points, which it introduced with the words,
	"The following considerations should in our opinion be taken into account in the precise definition of national park boundaries".
	This is the first consideration:
	"The first criterion should be the inclusion of areas of high landscape quality".
	I pause to point out that there is no reference here to relative naturalness. The second consideration was to be,
	"features of scientific historic or architectural value (e.g. nature reserves, important archaeological sites and ancient monuments) which are situated on the margins of a national park should be included where practicable".
	Far from being ineligible for designation, we argue that it is more in keeping with the original 1947 intentions to include wildlife and historical sites on the boundary.
	Further commentary on the intended operation of the 1949 Act was added by the Sandford committee in 1974 and the Edwards committee in 1991, which was adopted as government policy in circular 12/96. That 1996 circular noted that the Edwards committee had not recommended any change to the statutory criteria for designating land, but went on to endorse the committee's formulation of what it termed "the essence of national parks", which it described as,
	"the striking quality and remoteness of much of their scenery, the harmony between man and nature it displays, and the opportunities it offers for suitable forms of recreation".
	The conclusion I am asking the House to make is that the criteria for withdrawing national park boundaries have always been based on the combination of the concise words used in the 1949 Act and the commentary on them contained in administrative documents such as the ones I have mentioned. The Meyrick judgment has substituted a new commentary, which, if we do not change it, whether on appeal or within this legislation, will trump a long line of such reports going back to the 1947 report of the National Parks Committee.
	Looking at the wider implications of the judgment, our concern is not just about national parks. National parks share the same test, as far as natural beauty is concerned, with areas of outstanding beauty. AONBs were also introduced in 1949 to conserve those landscapes that had the same outstanding qualities of natural beauty but often, because of their more intensively farmed nature, did not offer the same opportunities for public recreation. They cover areas, as the House will know, such as Dedham Vale—Constable country, of course—the Kent Weald and the Cotswolds. The implications of the Meyrick judgment to them are potentially even more significant. The Countryside Agency has no area in the process of being designated as an AONB, but it is regularly asked by local authorities and others to review the boundaries of an AONB. If that were done without the amendments brought today, it would radically change the basis for considering AONB designations, and could reduce sharply the level of protection afforded to our most cherished landscapes.
	On a broader point, a requirement in Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 for the Minister in discharging any functions connected with agriculture in relation to any land is to take into account, among other things,
	"the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the countryside".
	It seems unlikely that it was intended to exclude dairy farms from this requirement.
	We do not accept the Meyrick concept of what a national park should be, or the learned High Court judge's definition of "natural beauty" as expressed in that case, which would be applied to AONBs. As I say, we have just received news that we have leave to appeal, but we want to take this opportunity to clarify the 1949 Act as the preferable and clearer route to dispel the uncertainty that has been created. I shall talk about our Amendment No. 131, which will clarify the interpretation of the criteria in Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 for a national park, and return its interpretation to how I argue it was generally understood prior to the Meyrick judgment in the challenge to the New Forest national park designation confirmation order. As I have argued, the former understanding can be traced back over the past 56 years.
	The amendment addresses the interface between the national park purposes and the criteria that are used for deciding whether land should be designated. We had always understood purposes and criteria to be two sides of the same coin, but the Meyrick judgment said they were not connected, with the purposes coming into play only after designation. The amendment addresses that issue by adjusting the wording of the criteria to include, "for the purposes", to make it clear that national park purposes are behind them.
	New Clause 97, which I am afraid I mistakenly moved in Committee, but which I intended to retable with identical wording on Report once further work had been completed on the criteria amendment, addresses the degree of naturalness needed to meet the natural beauty criterion. It does so by providing that certain factors need not preclude a finding of natural beauty, and will apply to areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as the national parks, and in other contexts. It takes into account the fact that no landscape in the United Kingdom has escaped human influence, and I hope Clause 97 will remain part of the Bill.
	I remind noble Lords that the Countryside Agency must consult widely before making a national park or AONB designation order, and that any local authority objection would trigger a public inquiry. That inquiry is before an independent inspector who hears evidence on the merits of the designation and scrutinises every length of proposed boundary in detail. This public inquiry is the correct forum in which to consider complex judgments about whether a particular piece of land meets the criteria for designation. Our amendment to Section 5 of the 1949 Act criteria merely ensures that the inquiry can consider the full range of matters that have been considered in previous designations since 1949. It does not prejudge the outcome in any particular case.
	I know several noble Lords are concerned that our amendments will make it in some sense easier to designate national parks and therefore lead to a new wave of designation. My reply is that our intention is to return the criteria to where we believe they were before the Meyrick judgment. Let us examine briefly what happened pre-Meyrick. In the past 50 years in England, there have been just three areas considered for national park status: the Norfolk and Suffolk broads, the New Forest and the South Downs. All three of those areas were proposed as national parks in the 1940s. No decision has yet been taken on the South Downs. Of course I cannot commit future governments, but on this evidence the application of the pre-Meyrick interpretation did not lead to a steady stream of fresh proposals; indeed, quite the reverse. I think that is where I should sit down and let the noble Baroness speak to her amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for going so carefully through the reasons why the Government have come forward with their amendment and I will try and do the same with ours, because obviously there was a disagreement over where these criteria for national parks should be. I have again listened carefully to what he has said, but we still have serious reservations and oppose his Amendment No. 131 in favour of our Amendment No. 132. At the beginning I would like to put on record—again—that we support national parks. There has been a view that perhaps we are a party that does not believe in or support national parks. The Minister is shaking his head. Quite rightly, he knows that is not true, but, in case anybody following this discussion later on should be in any doubt, I would like to clarify that before I start.
	I believe that in 1947 the Hobhouse report came before Parliament. Two years later, the 1949 Act was passed through the House. For whatever reason, the criteria the report contained were not included on the face of the Bill. The Minister may want to comment on that. The fact that farmed and managed land has been included in our national parks without challenge is, in fact, a strength of the present arrangement as this has been done in a voluntary fashion.
	I turn now to my Amendments Nos. 132 and 170. Noble Lords will be aware of the substance of my first amendment on criteria for the designation of national parks. Amendment No. 170 goes very well with Amendment No. 132 as it is to do with the terminology "natural beauty" and probes the Government's precise meaning of that phrase. I have to say I was disappointed in Committee that we were not given the proper opportunity to debate the government amendment, which has changed subtly since then. I was also surprised to see that the crucial clause on the definition of natural beauty was moved, as the noble Lord has acknowledged today, by accident, without a proper debate, but is still to be included in the Bill. I believe it is only fair to put on record that the whole process of the debate on national parks has been a disgrace. We asked for a Committee session in lieu of the failure to have a proper debate on this topic in Committee, but I was told that this would not be tenable. This has left us in a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a consequence, if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, Members in another place will not have debated the national park criteria at all.
	Our Amendment No. 132 is very clear. It seeks to clarify, once and for all, the criteria for the designation of national parks and to ensure that they are not widened by the latest suggestion from the Government. Amendment No. 170 backs that up by tightening the definition of natural beauty. In Committee, the Minister took care to state that when it comes to the designation of national parks:
	"The intention, and the current practice, is that wildlife and cultural heritage considerations are factored into the natural beauty assessment rather than being free-standing tests in their own right".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 79.]
	In which case, I wonder why the newly drafted criteria are quite so ambiguous, and further, why, when natural beauty is so central to the designation of national parks, it has a separate definition tucked away at the back of the Bill under miscellaneous provisions.
	I am glad that we now have the opportunity to debate these new measures fully. The approach to natural beauty during the debate and via amendments on this Bill has been confusing, to say the very least. The 1949 Act places reasons of "natural beauty", "opportunities . . . for open-air recreation" and the situation regarding "centres of population" on a level playing field. That is what has worked for the past 60 years or so, until the Meyrick case.
	Yet proposed new subsection (2A) in the Government's amendment would expand that definition of natural beauty by allowing Natural England to consider "wildlife and cultural heritage" as part of that. The addition of "wildlife" is, at best, nominal. "Natural beauty" has already been extended to include flora and fauna in Section 114 of the Countryside Act 1968. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he intends to achieve by including "wildlife" in a natural beauty clause. Likewise, "cultural heritage" has no clear meaning in the context of natural beauty. It is not defined anywhere else in this Bill.
	Clause 97 ensures that even if land is used for agriculture or woodlands or has an area whose flora, fauna or physiographical features are partly the product of a human intervention in the landscape, it could still be treated as being naturally beautiful. Even if it is not naturally beautiful—if, say, the designators are considering Anglo-Saxon burial grounds in the South Downs—it can still be treated as being an area of natural beauty. That land must simply not fall outside the criteria in Clause 97(a) to (c), and could, under existing proposals, be designated as a national park. If that is so, it is hard to imagine any of our countryside that would not come under any of those criteria.
	Our Amendment No. 170 seeks not only to tie in with the suggestion for clearer national park designation criteria, but to follow the legally tried-and-tested opinion of the judge in the Meyrick case, who stated that the current law requires the inclusion in the criteria of,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	That is quite clear. The judge used the wording of the New Forest landscape assessor, who while acknowledging that none of our landscape was perfectly pristine, stated that the,
	"terms of the Act must require a high degree of relative naturalness".
	The proposed government amendment to the criteria would rewrite the legal basis for the designation of national parks. It is a change to the 60 year-old legislation, with little or no consultation. Indeed, I understand that the Council for National Parks, the Association of National Park Authorities and the Countryside Agency have been consulted, but surely the Minister and the Government must recognise that consultation must be wider than those three bodies, who stand to benefit most from the widening of the criteria—a question which has not been answered.
	A landscape no longer has to afford the differences at the present, as in the 1949 Act, but can be assessed on its future potential for recreation. I quote the Government's amendment that seeks to,
	"take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities",
	to promote open-air recreation. That is not limited to the present.
	To take a case in point, the deadline for public objection to the designation of the South Downs as a national park was 1 March 2003. Now that the criteria may change, either way, will the Minister reassure the House that the objection process will be opened up again to enable the public to respond accordingly to the new terms? In the light of the pitfalls facing national parks at present, it seems odd that the Government are willing to rush into widening the designation.
	We heard on 3 February that the Lake District will sadly have to close its information centres owing to a shortfall in the funds and a lack of increase in the authority which it was expecting. There has also been a recent fund freezing for Exmoor National Park, and what is more, the future of the national park funding from the Environment Stewardship Schemes looks unpromising following the agreed cuts in the ERDP budget at the end of the last year.
	There are many other issues I could cover, but I hope I have laid out fairly clearly, for all noble Lords to understand, why we are bringing forward our amendment as opposed to accepting the Government's amendments. I understand that the Minister has said that indeed they have the right to appeal and that has been granted, but I believe it is up to Parliament to make this decision. This subject is complex, both in the way that it comes up in legislation and in the range of interests that are affected by national park land. Let me say as I close that it is our intention to preserve the very best of our landscapes by using both areas of outstanding natural beauty and national park status. That can be done by applying them in a way that gives due consideration to the relative qualities and needs of our landscape.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before speaking to this amendment I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
	I believe that the legislation has served us very well since 1949. When we debated the proposals in the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and then under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, I do not recall that we questioned whether the criteria were right. I think we accepted that the criteria were adequate at that point. We debated a great many issues, but the criteria were not among them.
	I support the government amendments. My worry with Amendment No. 132, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is the question of where in England we could find,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	I do not know Wales and Scotland so well, but perhaps it is possible to find areas there that can display,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	However, I think that it would be the absolute nail in the coffin for the designation of any more national parks or AONBs in England. Looking at the areas I know best, such as the Holnicote estate on Exmoor—I will not take up your Lordships' time by listing them all—I can think of none that displays,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness".
	They are all very much man-made areas.
	The Liberal Democrats will therefore be supporting the government amendments on the basis that the provisions have served us well. As for consultation, I believe that consultation has happened through the updating under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It was, of course, the Meyrick judgment which changed the designation issue. When changes are made in that way, absolutely no consultation takes place. Nevertheless these debates have enabled us to air the issues. However, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in being puzzled that Clause 97 is dealt with under miscellaneous provisions rather than in this part of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why.
	Finally, on the funding issue, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that it would be tremendous to see always increasing funding for national parks. Realistically, however, the funding levels achieved over the past six years have meant a substantial increase since 1997. While I absolutely accept that several parks have issues about how to deal with all of the pressures with such funding, I do not believe there is a case for asking for greater funding across the board for national parks. Exactly how the common agricultural policy is to work out for less favoured areas—upland areas, in particular—will be a critical matter. That does not apply only to areas in national parks, it applies across the board. On funding, that is the sort of area that concerns me regardless of whether it is in a national park.

Earl Peel: My Lords, while supporting my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 132 and 170, I take this opportunity to oppose as strongly as I can government Amendment No. 131 to the 1949 national park Act. In my opinion—and I am sorry to use these words—this is no more than a crude and brazen attempt by the Government to widen the criteria for national park designation. As my noble friend said, that has been done without any proper national consultation whatever. It has profound implications for future designations of national parks and indeed for extensions to existing park boundaries.
	The Minister pointed out when moving his amendment that before any new national park could be designated it would require a public inquiry. I accept that. Yet the public inquiry and the decisions that are made will be based on the legislation. If the legislation is changed, then those given that task will clearly have to take that into consideration. So I simply say how much better would it have been if the Government had simply acknowledged that fact and stopped trying to pretend that this is a mere tidying-up operation to help clarify a rather vague and esoteric misunderstanding that happened to lead to a clear judgment against them. As I said, in my view this is a deliberate attempt to widen the designation criteria for national park status. One consequence of that will undoubtedly be the upgrading of the South Downs AONB, despite the fact that such a move has already failed three times. The Minister said that no decision had been made on the South Downs AONB. A decision was not reached because the proposal was rejected three times. For very good reasons, it did not qualify.
	As I said in Committee, I found it deeply unsatisfactory and indeed—and I speak for many others in this respect—discourteous that such a profound change in legislation should be introduced at such a late stage of a Bill in your Lordships' House when the other place has not had the opportunity of giving it the high level of scrutiny that it deserves. The Government continually remind your Lordships that it is our duty to bend to the supremacy of the elected Chamber, yet here we find them bringing in significant legislation that the other place will not have had an effective means of scrutinising.
	The fact that the judgment on the Meyrick case came after the Bill had left the Commons is, to my way of thinking, quite irrelevant. Such a fundamental change in law should require it to go out to full consultation to all the stakeholders whom the Government are always so keen to get involved in such matters and then to come back at a later stage—even with a separate Bill, if needs be—when all relevant interests have been fully considered. I am bound to say that this is yet another example of the Government treating the countryside in a pretty shoddy way.
	I turn to the amendment itself. Clearly, the amendments that the Government are proposing to the amendment they tabled to the 1949 Act in Committee place the words "wildlife" and "cultural heritage" as being subsidiary to the existing requirement for natural beauty, which has itself been substantially widened by Clause 97. None the less, that overturns the High Court decision in the Meyrick case, when the judge confirmed that these were irrelevant considerations in designating national parks. Furthermore, the fact that cultural heritage is not defined in the Act further confuses the matter.
	The amendment under subsection (2A) to the open-air recreation criterion in the 1949 Act now includes the phrase,
	"take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities"
	for openair recreation. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, that could apply to virtually any land and would certainly embrace all of the existing AONBs. Furthermore, I believe it undermines the special nature of the existing national parks.
	From Addison, Dower and Hobhouse to Sandford and Edwards, there remains a common theme—that national parks should be very special areas, wild, beautiful and suitable for public access at the time of designation. The Government clearly want to undermine that principle. To illustrate that further, current government guidance on national parks also emphasises the importance of wildness. It states:
	"Particular emphasis should be placed on identifying those qualities associated with their wide open spaces, and the wilderness and tranquillity which are to be found within them".
	As I said, however, the Government maintain that they are simply attempting to clarify the law so as to fit in with their interpretation of the existing legislation before the Meyrick judgment. The truth is that, in 2000, the Countryside Agency tried to redefine the law by introducing a new policy on the designation criteria, without any consultation, and it was found wanting. So instead of going quietly, the Government are introducing legislation of national importance to comply with the judgment—and to the best of my knowledge, the only body that has been consulted is the Council for National Parks. Well, there's a surprise.
	There seems to be a view that the creation of a national park automatically results in a widespread echo of approval across the land. It is important not to forget that those whose real homes are in the park, and those who work in those areas, do not always share that euphoria. Designation means higher visitor pressure. It means extra constraints. It means a diminution of local democratic accountability. There are extra red tape and burdens on local businesses and communities, and a local house price distortion in favour of outside purchasers clambering for the distinction of having accommodation in a national park. Indeed, experience shows that in national parks starter homes are few and far between because of the inherent nature of restrictive planning policies. We must be under no illusion. Whereas national park status gives credit to the special nature of the landscape—well, it should do—it always delivers additional constraints to those who wish to make their living there, and such a designation is not always as welcome as some might think.
	One further point needs addressing. I have tried to stress that the imposition of a national park designation has profound implications for those who live and work in such areas. However, perhaps we should ask, in contrast, what additional benefits will accrue to the general public from any further national park designations. When national parks were first designated, we lived in a very different world from the one that we live in today. Today, the countryside is littered with a variety of new designations. We have SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and the like. There are government grants for an array of land management schemes—we have entry level 1, entry level 2, and the CAP has moved away from production subsidies to support for land management. That is all good stuff—I love it. There are conservation sites and heritage sites, and the CROW Act offers access opportunities to all open country, with provisions for the Government to extend such areas when deemed appropriate. So can the Minister please tell me exactly what benefits will accrue to the general public should an AONB, for example, be upgraded to a national park? It is incumbent on the Government to spell out in some detail just what benefits will accrue to the public given the additional cost that will be incurred and the diminution of democratic accountability suffered by the local community with the Secretary of State appointing so many non-democratically elected members of a national park board.
	These are hugely important issues and I do not believe they can be taken lightly. Given the nature of the amendment, a strong body of opinion feels that the Government should withdraw it and come back another day with a clear conscience in the knowledge that the job has been done properly. I know that that is not likely, and in the mean time I have great pleasure in supporting the two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford. To my way of thinking, they are at least akin to the original designation criteria.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I start by declaring that I am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. It so happens that at the weekend I went back to my original copy of the 1949 Act; that is to say, before Section 5(1), the purposes section, was amended by the 1995 Act. The original Section 5(1) is entirely consistent with the criterion section, Section 5(2). They both refer to "natural beauty". It is obvious to me that what happened in 1995 was that either parliamentary counsel thought it was unnecessary to make the words the same in both Sections 5(1) and 5(2), or, dare one say it, Homer nodded.
	Amendment No. 131 puts us back to what we thought we had done 11 years ago in 1995. I therefore find it difficult to follow noble Lords—I have particularly in mind the noble Earl, Lord Peel, but also the noble Baroness—who think this is a fundamental amendment—I think "fundamental enlargement" were the noble Baroness's words—and that we are rewriting in haste fundamental national park criteria, purposes and so on. Nor do I agree with the CLA's briefing material on this. It is not true that the Countryside Agency changed its policy for designating national parks in 2000. The judge did not criticise this new policy. What he did was to criticise the definition, or lack of definition, in the 1949 Act. He simply ignored consistent policy from Dower and Hobhouse—in whom I declare a quasi-interest, as my father was a member of the Hobhouse committee—to Sandford and Edwards. I could go on, but others have spoken in the same vein.
	I strongly support the Government on Amendment No. 131 and not the noble Baroness's amendment. As the Minister said, all that Amendment No. 132 does is to enshrine Meyrick in the statute book. I can see that there are some who regard the whole concept of national parks as anathema. I do not accuse the noble Baroness of that. However, if that is one's point of view, then one must regard the judge as something of a saviour, for he effectively torpedoed any new national park. We have already referred to the proposed South Downs national park.
	What intrigues me is what would have happened if the Hinton estate, the subject of the Meyrick case, had been in the middle of the New Forest. The Minister put his remarks rather better than I have done here in speculating what our existing national parks would have been like if Meyrick had obtained in those days. The Minister mentioned Chatsworth, which is a good example. I immediately think of my part of the world, the Lake District. First, of course, all the towns and villages would be excluded, as would all the parkland, including Muncaster, Dalemain, Lowther and so on, and many other smaller parks. It would not stop there, because almost every major dale consists largely and importantly of farmland that depends entirely on the hand of man for its appearance and beauty. That is the whole basis of Wordsworth's poetry. One cannot conceivably argue that the typical lakeland dale exhibits a high degree of relative naturalness. How on earth, for example, would you distinguish between the typical parkland at Dalemain and a farm at the head of Langdale?
	The national park, all national parks, would be like a Swiss cheese, with more holes than substance. Any idea of having co-ordinated planning policies involving the totality of the landscape would be blown sky high. I am sure that that is not what the noble Baroness seeks. It is certainly not what Lord Sandford wanted in his report of 1974. He was not only a member of her party, but he was at the time of his report a member of her government.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I felt that my noble friend Lord Peel gave valuable evidence to this House of some of the difficulties that arise when a national park is designated. Over the years the 1949 Act has weathered extremely well and the criteria laid down then have been adequate ever since over the 50 years that the Act has been in operation. We tend to forget that if we increase the number of national parks even by three, four or five, it devalues all the national parks. It is important that we try to keep a national park as something very special, to be so designated only if it has exceptional qualities. If one does have a national park designated, one can see and know of the problems that arise. Of course, it encourages a substantial increase in tourism. But that in turn requires facilities, restrooms, cafes and hotels, better roads and so on—and what was a quiet backwater of beauty sometimes becomes a honey pot of hell. We have to be very careful before we go down the route of creating more national parks. We really cannot have it both ways. If we want to have quiet beauty and the opportunity to tour about in one's car to see the countryside, then we cannot expect it to remain that way if it is designated a national park, with all the developments that take place in parks.
	I visited all the national parks when I was the Minister responsible. At the same time I was able to feel some of the tensions between the national parks boards or authorities, the local authority and indeed the government. It was never a very happy relationship. In terms of housing and other facilities, many people felt that by living in a national park, they were hard done by—as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly said. We have to try to find a way forward which allows us to retain our present situation. After all, the AONBs do extremely well. They are easily designated, can be understood by all and sundry, and do not need the detailed problems of planning and local authority involvement that they would need if they became a national park.
	One does not like to be political about these things, but one tends to feel that the Government designate national parks because they think it will be popular with the public. When the public think about what happens subsequently, however, they may rather wish they were not living in a national park, or that more and more were not designated. In my mind, that goes for Scotland, too, which we are not discussing tonight. I know all the areas under consideration there and the difficulties. Whether we are talking about transmission lines, a windmill, or goodness knows what else, we have to try to concentrate on retaining the beauty of our national parks and not devalue them by making them commercial enterprises so that they can be viable.
	Finally, and most importantly, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly put forward the point that we have had no consultation on this very important change. I think the Minister should try to explain why he has not had detailed consultation and why there is no time for it to happen in future. There are, after all, a lot more people in the national parks authorities who want to give their views, including all the wildlife and countryside interests. They have been put to one side and have not been consulted. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford is marginally better than the Minister's and does not make it easier to create national parks.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I farm in an area within the proposed designated area of the South Downs national park. I am afraid that I do not like either of these amendments. I cannot support my noble friend Lord Peel because the Meyrick definition of a degree of relative naturalness, enshrined into the criteria, would be far too restrictive. The Minister makes a perfectly sound case to say that, however you define such words, the amendments would exclude some of the national parks which we clearly value in England at the moment. I recognise that the Minister, in trying to clear up what he feels is a maverick judgment in the Meyrick case, is quite certainly adding to the criteria. My noble friend Lord Peel makes that point and I accept it. Unlike him, I am sometimes prepared to accept that new national parks might be an advantage. Indeed, I did something that I am sure he thinks totally eccentric: I opted to have more rather than less of my farm included within the designated area of the South Downs national park. I simply took the view that if we were going to have it—expensive though it was likely to be—we had better derive the benefits rather than be excluded. I recognise that once you have changed the criteria, there are issues which extend to all people, whether visiting, working or living in these areas. If, on the back of this judgment, we are to slip new criteria into this Bill, it is very reasonable that there should be a proper period of consultation once more. That includes those who may already have been consulted in such areas as the South Downs designated area. I oppose the Minister and I will be abstaining on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have to confess to being even more sceptical than any of those who have already spoken on this group of amendments. For a relatively small country, we probably have about enough parks and areas of outstanding beauty already. It sounds as if we are finding that we cannot afford the degree of facilities, in national parks, to which we have become accustomed. This happens at a time when, apparently, we cannot afford sufficient nurses to run our hospitals, and when the raising of greater amounts of taxation is widely unpopular. For all these kinds of reasons, it is time to have second thoughts on all these amendments, and perhaps to leave things well alone.

Lord Bach: My Lords, this has been a passionate and very good debate. Emotions run high on this issue. There is a real difference of opinion here and it is much better to acknowledge that than to pretend there is none. I will try to pick up one or two of the questions before concluding my remarks. Why is Clause 97 in Part 9, headed "Miscellaneous"? Because it covers wider issues than those dealt with in Part 5, headed "National Parks and the Broads". Clause 97 covers the definition of natural beauty for nature reserves, AONBs and SSSIs. That is why it is placed where it is in the Bill.
	We believe we are restoring the law to what we and others believed it to be before the Meyrick judgment. We are not trying to change the criteria from what we believed them to be before the Meyrick judgment. That is the basis upon which my amendment, Amendment No. 131, is laid. I know that there is some concern—great concern in some quarters—that this has not been debated in the elected Chamber. That is right, it has not been. As the noble Earl acknowledged himself, however, the Meyrick judgment was post the transfer of the Bill from the Commons to this House. It would have been impossible for that to have happened, if this were to be part of the Bill.
	The noble Earl also asked what additional benefits to the public there would be with any new national parks. The South Downs is the last area referred to in Hobhouse that is still outstanding. National parks have two purposes. One is the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and so on, and the other is the promotion, understanding and enjoyment of natural beauty. AONBs have just one purpose—the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. In our view, AONBs do not provide the same opportunities for outdoor informal recreation as do national parks.
	The noble Baroness properly asked why the Hobhouse criterion was not included in the 1949 Act. The Act needed to be flexible in general and did not need to go into detail. She also asked why the new criteria are ambiguous. The meaning of "natural beauty" is not expanded; it simply clarifies what we already understand it to mean. The word "wildlife" is in our amendment as it helps to determine how landscape is formed. The term "cultural heritage" simply reflects how man has helped to shape landscape through the ages. I would argue that the existing national parks have strongly reflected that in practice, but I remind the House that inquiries have to be held in considering new designations. I was asked whether the objection process would be open to the public over the new terms for the South Downs. This could well result in the reopening of the inquiry, and the inquiry inspector will consider what needs to be asked of interested parties.
	I turn to Amendment No. 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I do not think that the noble Baroness would disagree that it would have the effect of putting the Meyrick interpretation unambiguously into primary legislation. With regard to natural beauty, it would specify that only the physical beauty of the land would be considered and that it would need to have a high degree of relative naturalness. The noble Baroness suggested that it was clear what that meant, but I disagree with her. I agree that the expression used is too restrictive, but what does,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness",
	mean? That phrase is not defined but I assume that it is intended to remove parkland, dairy farms and any other well maintained farmland from national parks. It would also exclude wildlife and cultural heritage considerations—factors which contribute to the landscapes that we all cherish and which, as I have shown, were certainly considered eligible for inclusion in the 11 national parks designated immediately after the 1949 Act.
	Amendment No. 132 would also narrow the second criterion for designation—namely, the opportunities which the land affords for open-air recreation. It seeks to restrict that only to opportunities which the land affords "at the present time"—a phrase which I take to refer to the time that the assessment of a given piece of land is carried out. That could exclude potentially suitable land just because, for example, it did not happen to have a voluntary access agreement in place when the assessment was made and it might preclude the taking into account of the reasonably foreseeable fruits of a national park authority's role in promoting such agreements. What of rights of way that were in very poor condition at the time of the assessment? Would that mean that opportunities were not in evidence "at the present time"? It is inherent in the word "opportunities" that an appropriate degree of looking to the future was intended by the 1949 Act. That point was accepted by both sides—claimants and judge—in the Meyrick judgment. In our opinion, Amendment No. 132 seeks to go well beyond the Meyrick judgment in narrowing the designation criteria for national parks.
	As I have said, the Government's amendment, when read together with our new Clause 47, and those of the loyal Opposition offer two quite different visions of national parks. The Government's amendments offer a continuation of previous policies in which national parks contain a mix of land types offering a range of recreational experiences. The contrary vision offered by the Meyrick judgment and Amendments Nos. 132 and 170 is that, in effect, national parks should be a much more exclusive concept. Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with those who have said that it is hard to see any way in which national parks could now be created and that they would perhaps be difficult to find in the UK, being made up only of land which is wild and relatively untouched by man and where there is already a high level of access for public recreation. I hope that, of the two alternatives which have been set fairly before the House, your Lordships will prefer the Government's version.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 131) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 195; Not-Contents, 104.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
	Clause 58 [Procedure for orders designating National Parks]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Page 23, line 29, leave out from first "the" to "as" and insert "1949 Act"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 59 [Members of National Park authorities]:
	[Amendment No. 134 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 134A:
	Page 24, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) After paragraph 1, insert—
	:TITLE3:"National Park authorities in Wales
	1A (1) A National Park authority in Wales shall consist of an appropriate balance of national and local members, consisting of—
	(a) a specified number of directly elected members who are to be elected in a poll of all those who, on the day of the poll—
	(i) would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in an electoral area falling wholly or partly within the National Park, and
	(ii) are registered in the register of local government electors at an address within the National Park; and
	(b) a specified number of other members to be appointed by the Minister in the National Assembly for Wales;
	and "specified" means specified in the relevant order.
	(2) The total number of elected members must exceed the number of other members having regard to the minimum proportions for the Minister's appointees as described in sub-paragraph (3) below.
	(3) The total number of members of a National Park authority in Wales who are appointed by the Minister shall be a minimum proportion of 25 per cent.
	(4) The Minister in the National Assembly for Wales shall consult all relevant authorities and interested bodies in specifying the number of local authority members, community council members and other members to be appointed by him in the relevant order."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I apologise because I realise that much of this was debated in Committee, but unfortunately I was indisposed and could not speak—literally. I had no voice at all at that time. But I want to make a firm statement on why we need to reform the membership of national parks in Wales and introduce directly elected members.
	I declare an interest as a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. With that in mind, noble Lords may realise what I am about to say. Nominees are not whiter than white, and elected people are far better. I shall give three examples of what has happened with nominees as members of a national park. First, I refer to a local government nominee. The member resided 60 miles from a national park boundary. He chaired the planning committee and, as chair, he gave a casting vote allowing planning permission to go ahead to permit an open-cast coal site to be developed against much local opposition. He lived 85 miles away from the community directly affected by that environmental degradation. In the following 15 years that continued. He created a precedent as there are more coal reserves beneath the adjoining land. I should point out that 20 per cent of Wales is national park—that is, one fifth.
	The second example concerns a Welsh Assembly Government appointee. He became chair of the strategy and policy committee, and chair of the working party within the national park that wrote the unitary development plan. He lived on the edge of a village; he owned land locally and, by stealth, got written into the development plan, a proposal to build 200 houses on his own land. He then "retired" from the park committee. Three adjoining community councils wanted only about six affordable homes in each village, and no more. The locals opposed the 200-house project and had no direct input into its inclusion in the local plan. Needless to say, the development proposed was twice the size of the existing village.
	The third example is of the chairman of a national park being on the board of a company—these are all nominated people—located outside the park that is involved in producing and extracting aggregates: sand and gravel. During his tenure, large reserves of gravel in a very sensitive river valley in the national park were earmarked for future extraction. The individual has now retired as chairman of the authority and the decision still stands. In all these cases declarations of interest were not transparent and, in some cases, only declared retrospectively, following public pressure. Indeed, research shows that the interests of national park members do not appear transparently in the case of any national park in England and Wales. I am sure the Minister will agree that all these appointed members have not worked in the best interests of the national park, in terms of the environment, communities or sustainability.
	Only democratic accountability, through direct election involving people who reside in the national park, will meet the needs of the people who live there. If the electorate elects a member to represent them, that community will be sensitively represented, and not sidelined, as some communities are when a few favourite centres are promoted to the detriment of others. I speak of one local authority, which is 130 miles long and has six adjoining authorities that have very little land in the park but are all represented to the exclusion of democratically elected people. The present system is subject to lobbying within local authorities and, at quango level, to people very often appointed in their own interests. They pursue agendas not necessarily in the local interest, and frequently ignore places in greatest need. The present situation in Wales, as far as representation is concerned, is not as good as that in England. At least in England parish councils can nominate a member to serve with approval on the national park; Welsh community councils do not have that opportunity. However, directly elected representatives are a much better option and increase accountability to communities in Welsh national parks.
	I fully accept the need for nationally appointed members, but many communities are sidelined. Do not forget that parks have planning powers. This means that 20 per cent of planning in Wales is decided by nominees, not by elected people. The Minister, in his response to Amendment No. 307 in Committee, stated:
	"The Welsh Assembly Government are preparing to consult on membership arrangements and have expressed the view that they would not want the Bill to pre-empt the decisions that they will take in light of their consultation".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 113.]
	Indeed, direct elections are ruled out in that consultation; only decisions on appointed members will be made. Also, the Welsh Assembly, through secondary legislation, has the power to legislate on membership, but the evidence is that non-elected national park authorities are flawed.
	The wording of this amendment is derived directly from the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, which went through the Scottish Parliament. The Members of the Scottish Parliament have created two national parks: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and the Cairngorms. The Act contains provisions for direct elections to national parks in Scotland. Indeed, proposed subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause are derived directly from the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Those representatives in the two national parks in Scotland are directly elected, as is proposed for Wales in this amendment. The same structure should find favour in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has secondary legislative powers, but we could push this through in this House, because the Welsh Assembly does not have the primary legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament. If it had those powers it could introduce a provision such as this in Cardiff.
	I hope that the Assembly will take note of what is happening in Scotland and derive benefit from it. I acknowledge what the Minister said in Committee; having read the whole debate and what the Minister said at that time, I suspect that there is little scope for further debate. The Welsh Assembly is consulting on membership, but direct elections are by far the best route. Sadly, they are left out. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is very good of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to point out the differences between national parks legislation in different parts of the country. The national parks in Wales are obviously looking for far more local representation. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed out some of the pitfalls of nationally appointed members, though as far as I could understand, some of the people he described as having substantial interests in the parks did not live there. I happen to live in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and I know the workings of that. We have a number of elected representatives. They are not noticeably above criticism because they seem to be elected very often for certain local interests. People say that they do not represent other interests that they have. There are pitfalls in various places, but I am very interested in what the noble Lord has said.

Earl Peel: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I stick my nose into Welsh affairs, but I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said. I was not aware that parish councils were not entitled to sit on national park authorities in Wales. The introduction of parish councillors to the English national parks—the Yorkshire Dales National Park being the one I know best—has brought an extremely welcome local dimension to park proceedings. Anything that does that must be welcomed, so I thoroughly support what the noble Lord has said.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 135 in this group. It is an all-party amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and me. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is abroad on parliamentary business, so he has asked me to lead on it in his absence. I am more than glad to do so. Like the noble Lord, I am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
	I have a procedural difficulty: if we were to agree to all three amendments in this group, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, would be left in the air because Clause 59, which he seeks to amend, would have been replaced by the new Clause 59 proposed in our Amendment No. 135. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey failed, but the new Clause 59—as contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—were agreed to, Wales would be left out in the cold. I am sure that we would all deplore that state of affairs. In the circumstances, it would be better to postpone these three amendments tonight and deal with them at Third Reading. That would allow the various parties to sit down and get an organised amendment to put before the House. I would be happy to go along with something like that. May I ask the Government for a reaction? I suggest that I now give way to the Minister to get a reaction. If the Government want the House to press on with this tonight, I shall go back to my speech.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I think that the Minister will confirm that the membership of national parks in Wales is devolved by secondary legislation to the National Assembly so I suspect that if there is no vote on my amendment the membership issue will be dealt with after consultation in the Assembly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are getting slightly out of kilter. It is not for me to advise the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whether to press his amendment tonight or to advise the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. When we get to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has spoken, if he wishes to press it, he may do so, or he may withdraw it. It is a little out of order to have cross-Chamber negotiation about possible alternatives. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, that was most helpful and I shall continue. The main difference between Amendment No. 135, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the similar amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is that the former is restricted to English national parks. The Welsh factor has been removed. We have just been listening to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, on that. The Welsh factor having been separated, two issues remain: first, the 25 per cent minimum rule for national representation, and, secondly, whether the Government should consult more widely before making appointments.
	I shall take the second point first. The Minister said in Committee that the Government already do what the amendment seeks and therefore no change to the legislation is needed. However, one can equally argue that in that case the Government can hardly object to enshrining good practice in the Bill. I shall leave it at that.
	The noble Lord made much the same point about the 25 per cent rule: that current practice is for about 25 per cent of national park members to be national appointees. He went on to argue, quite reasonably, that the needs of parks are likely to vary from park to park and that reflecting those variations is best left to secondary legislation. I am sure that we all agree on that, but that is not the main point. It is only part of the point. The point of principle is that there must be a floor, a minimum. We must have regard to the future. Ministers change, attitudes change, and governments change. To the saying,
	"Put not your trust in princes",
	the late Hugh Dalton added,
	"still less in Ministers of the Crown".
	For that reason, we need to specify a basic rule in the legislation. It may be that 25 per cent is not the right figure, but it is essential that there should be a national representation in each English national park and it must be more than mere tokenism. The essence of national parks is that they are national, and their being reflects national considerations. Is it not rather strange that we specify precisely the relationship between local authority and parish members on one hand and the "other members"—that the former should exceed the latter—but we give no guidance, such as a floor, on the number of other members, the national appointees?

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I support the principle that the minimum proportion of nationally appointed members on a national park authority should be 25 per cent. National parks are national, and while local democracy, connections and input are vital—I support the figure of 51 per cent representation for local members—there is no doubt that sometimes it is necessary to have an adequate balance coming from the national perspective. The balance is usually unaffected by the sometimes overheated local parochial campaigns that can exist. National members have a larger constituency than some local members. They represent all those who use or visit the national park or who might want to do so in future. Therefore, I believe that the minimum figure for national representatives on a national park authority should be 25 per cent.

Lord Moran: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said. I speak as someone who lives in Wales and I know how much the noble Lord is respected in my part of the country. He speaks with great authority on these matters. The examples he gave us show what is wrong with the present state of affairs. It is important that there should be a proper balance and better representation of local interests in Wales. The case he has put is very strong and I shall support it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth and hope that the Welsh Assembly takes careful note of his wise and informed words on this issue.
	I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 134B, which is consequential—in reverse—on Amendment No. 135 because if the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, tests the opinion of the House on that amendment and the House agrees to it, it will be necessary for Amendment No. 134B to be agreed. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, except to agree with him. Until now, the Government's position has been to agree that the 25 per cent is important. Our amendment does not interfere with the increased flexibility—it allows local circumstances to be taken into account—it merely ensures that the safeguard is in the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we missed the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. We were sorry that he was ill and not with us in Committee. We recognise his wide knowledge and concern. I endorse the fact that he is widely respected in Wales.
	Clause 59 improves the arrangements for appointing members to national park authorities in England and Wales. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it is intended to make the system more efficient, more flexible and more responsive to local needs. Three general principles are raised by Amendments Nos. 134A and 135. The first, raised by Amendment No. 134A, is that national park authorities in Wales—and only Wales—should include members who are directly elected to the authority. The second principle is that the primary legislation should specify that the other members whom the Secretary of State or the Welsh Minister appoints should always make up at least 25 per cent of an authority. The third principle, which is raised in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is that before laying an order to establish the membership of an authority, the Government should consult not just the local authorities affected but also all relevant authorities and interested bodies.
	First, the issue of directly electing members to the Welsh national parks authorities was debated when the existing legislation was being enacted, and was reconsidered in the recent English and Welsh reviews of national parks authorities. The concept has never commanded general support. The duality of NDPB and local authority involvement in national parks reflects their dual responsibilities: they serve the country as a whole, because national parks are national assets, and they have a direct responsibility to those who live in the parks. The current arrangements reflect the unique role of national parks very well. The review of the Welsh national parks authorities found no consensus on the issues raised by the amendment.
	I do not propose to comment on whether the policy decisions were rightly taken, tempting though that is, particularly following the remarks made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. I am pleased that he is happy, although I note that he has some mild reservations about certain aspects of his own personal experience. I must, however, frown slightly at the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, who I think said, "We could push this through here in advance of the Welsh Assembly consulting the people of Wales". However technically correct the noble Lord is about that, that is not how we have approached devolution in Wales. The noble Lord knows very well that we seek the views of the Welsh Assembly and would not want to ride roughshod over its process. He appears to have some very valid points, so I suggest that he directs them to the National Assembly and not to the Westminster Parliament as a means of seeking to influence what is rightly the Welsh Assembly review.
	Secondly, on the 25 per cent rule, the other members of national parks authorities, who are appointed by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Minister, are often referred to as national members—the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, among others, mentioned this. We take the view that this is not a question of the 25 per cent figure itself, which, as it so happens, is consistent with current practice. We do not believe that it is sensible for any level to be set in primary legislation; decisions are best left to secondary legislation, where they can be taken on a case-by-case basis and can reflect the context in which particular authorities are working at the time. We do not see any value in replacing one rigid formula with another; flexibility is needed. For that same reason, Amendment No. 134B, which proposes that Clause 59 be withdrawn, cannot be supported. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, indicated that he had some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I assure him that the 25 per cent figure has been fairly constant. I hope that he will agree on reflection that it would be extremely useful to keep the flexibility in this clause.
	Finally, the third general principle is about consultation before introducing secondary legislation. Although the existing statutory requirement is to consult only the local authorities, it is already Defra practice to include other consultees who may have an interest. We believe that only the minimum level of consultation should be specified in legislation—that is, with the local authorities. Who else to consult is best considered using discretion according to the needs at the time. This would avoid a disproportionate level of consultation by list.
	We believe that Clause 59 improves the arrangements for appointing members of national parks authorities and will make the system more effective and more responsive, particularly to local needs. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, obviously I respect what the Minister said about devolution, and I agree that the National Assembly will consult on this very issue. However, even before consultation, direct elections are ruled out as a possible solution to the membership in Wales. I made what I hope was a pretty forthright statement on that tonight because I believe that it is wrong that it does not consider that option as well as all the other options. All it will do is consider what kind of nominees it will have, and that sort of thing. I accept the Minister's frown; I understand the reason for it, and I agree with her. However, the National Assembly must take this issue very seriously, because the model that it is using at the moment is not perfect. I totally accept the nomination of 25 per cent of members in the national interest; indeed, I am bound to do so as I am associated with the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, for example. There is, however, a balance to be achieved between communities that are directly affected by planning decisions taken by unelected people. That is a very important principle, which is what I wanted to draw to the House's attention tonight. Therefore, in respecting the devolution settlement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am advised by the Table that if the House makes its opinion clear on Amendment No. 135, it is up to the Government to take that into account with regard to Amendment No. 134B.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness rephrase that so that I can follow her line of argument?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I checked with the Table whether I should next move my amendment and test the opinion of the House on it, or whether, as I would prefer, we should first test its opinion on Amendment No. 135, should the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, decide to do so. I was told that if the House agreed to Amendment No. 135, we would be left with two Clause 59s, unless I sought to divide the House on my amendment as well. It would then be for the Government to choose whether to delete their own Clause 59, which would be superfluous.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, while I consider that, I should point out that proposed new subsection (4) of Amendment No. 135 would apply the 25 per cent to Secretary of State-appointed membership in England but not in Wales. There would be no minimum content in proposed subsection (3) of Amendment No. 134A, which does not apply the 25 per cent. If Amendment No. 135 were agreed to, we would have to come back to Amendment No. 134B at Third Reading. Does that help the noble Baroness?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 134B:
	Leave out Clause 59

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it does help the noble Baroness. Thank you very much. In that case, I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 134B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 112.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
	Clause 64 [Restriction on creation of new public rights of way]:

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 135A:
	Page 26, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) If the use of a road by mechanically propelled vehicles has been removed by a traffic order and there no longer exists a carriageway appropriate for those vehicles, the use shall not be revived by revocation or amendment of that order, and a new carriageway and its use by mechanically propelled vehicles may only be permitted in accordance with the legislation that would apply if the carriageway and a public right of way for that use had never existed."

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I will now divert your attention to an entirely different subject, which might be to your relief. In Committee, I moved an amendment concerning the "Sloane Square" amendment. It was grouped with many other amendments and did not receive adequate consideration.
	I shall address the effect of amending legislation on traffic regulation orders on rights of way issues and why I believe an amendment to the present regulations is necessary. The particular example giving rise to the amendments is in Sloane Square, although it may well not be unique. In the late 1920s, the original crossroads in Sloane Square were converted into a roundabout by means of a traffic regulations order made under the London Traffic Act 1924. Its effect continues under a consolidated traffic regulation order made for the whole of London in 1965. The former Chelsea borough council at first intended to seek a justice's order for the extinguishment of the original highways across what is now the central island. It then realised that that would result in the site of the roads reverting to the freeholder of the adjacent lands; namely the Cadogan Estate.
	There were then no planning controls which could have prevented the owner allowing any use that suited it and there was considerable pressure for converting the island into a car park, which the council rightly considered undesirable. It therefore decided to leave the highway rights over the island for pedestrians only and in 1930 laid it out with the previous small adjoining islands as a paved public garden with trees, removing all indication of the original carriageways.
	More than 75 years later, this oasis in the middle of the busy but not unattractive square and conservation area is enjoyed by local residents and visitors from all over the world. However, after what is considered by many to be a wholly inadequate non-statutory public consultation, Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council wish to revert to a carriageway on its original line across the island, dividing it into two sections and making other alterations which will provide some improvement for pedestrian traffic but gravely diminish the amenity and recreational value of the island and the character of the whole square. But because the affected land remains a highway, the existing traffic regulation order can be undone by a new order made by the council—delegated to its relevant cabinet member—with no need to use the planning Act procedures except for minor details. The traffic regulation order procedure provides only limited mechanisms for public intervention, which can largely be ignored by the council; there is no right of appeal if that procedure has not been properly carried out.
	The amendment seeks to set down grounds under which a traffic regulation order might be the subject of proper consultation and proper democratic procedures, so that people can make their objections and their views felt and that it will not be possible to override a traffic order which has been placed over a particular square, or anywhere else, by the limited intervention of a cabinet member of the local authority involved. I am sorry that this is a complicated matter and I ask that unless the Minister has an answer to it, he takes it away and gives it proper consideration. Although this is a small issue, it raises a rights-of-way matter where a traffic regulation order was placed a long time ago and can now apparently be set aside for relatively minor considerations. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the only tiny footnote I will add to what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said is that as recently as 1977 when I was elected for the neighbouring constituency of Cities of London and Westminster, the King's Road still ran through Eaton Square. Westminster City Council was clearly extremely far-sighted in not changing the name earlier, but allowing plenty of time for things to settle down. However, it did subsequently change it, and it must by that stage have assumed that the status quo had been established.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 135A and 154A aim to provide that, where a traffic regulation order prohibits the use of motor vehicles on a route over which public motor vehicular rights exist, on revocation of the order, the public motor vehicular rights will be extinguished in cases where the route is no longer suitable for use by such vehicles. Such a provision would serve no practical purpose; if the local authority considers that the route is unsuitable for use by motor vehicles, it has the option of simply not revoking the traffic regulation order.
	Furthermore, traffic regulation orders are primarily formulated for, and for the most part employed on, the ordinary roads network. There is a danger here that amending the legislation relating to traffic regulation orders in order to deal with rights of way issues, could have unforeseen and adverse consequences for the rest of the highways network. For example, the amendment might encourage local authorities to neglect to maintain certain highways, using this provision as a backdoor method of extinguishing rights, rather than going through the proper statutory process for extinguishment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will remember that I put forward those arguments in Committee, but there are some further arguments that I seek to use to persuade him not to press this amendment. I have already explained to the House that the Government have severe reservations about a statutory approach to assessing the suitability of rights of way. A similar approach was taken to the reclassification of roads used as public paths rights in the Countryside Act 1968. Disputes about some of these reclassifications are still going on to this very day. The difficulties would be even greater under these arrangements because we are contemplating statutory extinguishment of rights on the basis of the local authority's assessment of its suitability without any process at all for objection or appeal. Moreover, a TRO only temporarily suspends the public's right to use a highway; it does not extinguish them once and for all as the noble Lord seems to be proposing. Even so, the TRO-making process provides the opportunity for interested parties to object and be heard. This amendment would, we fear, enable once and for all extinguishment on the back of the TRO process, with no further process for those with an interest to have a say. Why create such difficulties when the local authority has the simple option of not revoking an order?
	I understand the expertise that the noble Lord brings to this subject, which is one that I cannot compete with in this House. However, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe that it would be wrong to accept these amendments and I hope that he may withdraw them.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It appears from what he said that the traffic regulation order that is proposed to be made by the council—in this case, by Kensington and Chelsea—and is delegated to the relevant cabinet member cannot in fact be made as he said without proper public consultation. That is, when a traffic regulation order has been made, if it is varied one way or the other, there must be some public consultation. Therefore, it does not appear from what he has said that it is a matter simply for the appropriate cabinet member to take on behalf of the council. If I have understood him correctly, I shall withdraw the amendment, but it would help me in dealing with this if I could be satisfied that there would be some proper public scrutiny of what is going on. It appears from the briefing that I have received that this matter has been delegated and will be dealt with without that degree of consultation.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the specific case that the noble Lord refers to, although quite properly, has little to do with the recreational use of motor vehicles on rights of way, which is what we are concerned with in this part of the Bill—and that would be a matter for the Department for Transport. I shall take away his specific reference.
	I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question about the cabinet member. I shall write to him with a response.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his offer of a letter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage continues not before 8.35 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Information Sharing Index (England) Regulations 2006

Lord Adonis: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee and 27th Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Adonis: My Lords, these regulations provide for data-matching trials to take place as essential initial work in the development and implementation of the information sharing index, to be established under Section 12 of the Children Act 2004. Section 12 provides that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills may make regulations in relation to the establishment and operation of an index. The Government announced on 8 December of last year, in a written parliamentary Statement, their plans to make an initial set of regulations governing data-matching trials. The regulations before us this evening give effect to that commitment. Later this year, we will consult on and lay before Parliament more substantial draft regulations to govern the operation of the index itself.
	Better information sharing is essential for early and effective intervention to improve the five Every Child Matters outcomes for children: being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and achieving economic well-being. The information sharing index is a key element of the Every Child Matters programme to transform children's services. It will support more effective prevention and early intervention to ensure that children get the additional services that they need as early as possible. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of public services for all children, young people and families.
	The index will provide a tool to support better communication among practitioners across education, health, social care and youth offending. It will allow them to contact one another more easily and quickly so that they can share information about children who need services or about whose welfare they are concerned. The index will hold basic identifying information on all children in England. It will also contain the names and contact details of practitioners providing specialist and targeted services to a child. Practitioners will also be able to indicate that they have information to share, have taken action or have completed a common assessment framework.
	It is important that practitioners and the public can be confident in both the accuracy and robustness of the index, when fully developed. A number of concerns have been expressed, not least by your Lordships during the passage of the Children Bill, about accuracy, security and the feasibility of collecting and managing such a large volume of data. That is why we are proceeding by way of trials. The regulations will provide us with the legal basis to undertake key tests in relation to the accuracy and quality of the data that will populate the index. The fact that we are bringing forward these regulations at this time, and in advance of the work to load data on to the index proper, is wholly consistent with our careful step-by-step approach towards the whole of the index project. The results of the trials will not only inform the final design of the index but refine the statutory guidance and the full regulations which will support its operation.
	To create a record on the index containing basic information for each child, it will be necessary to draw upon a number of existing sources for the relevant data items. No single data source currently contains them all. To prepare the way for this, we need to examine a sample of records from each of the data sources. This will enable an assessment of how comprehensively each source covers the population of children and which is the most reliable source of accurate and up-to-date information. It will also enable us to assess how disparities in the way in which data sources record each item can most efficiently be overcome, so that data from different sources on the same child can be brought together or matched accordingly.
	The regulations provide a clear legal basis for these tests, and provide for the organisations that hold the data sources to be tested to supply data so the tests can take place. The regulations require local authorities in England to comply with a request from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to supply, from their existing source systems, basic child information. By basic child information, I mean the child's name, address, date of birth, gender, any number used to identify a child's record and the name and contact details of anyone with parental responsibility or who has care of the child, when that information exists. The authorities will also be required to provide the name and contact details of any practitioner providing a specialist or targeted service to the child. We are, however, engaging the participation of only nine local authorities, chosen to represent geographical spread and different size and type of area. I should stress that we have secured the agreement of all nine authorities to take part in the trials, and the Government will meet their reasonable costs. There will be no charge to the council tax payer.
	We will also collect a sample of basic child information from national government data sources under powers provided by Section 12(9) of the Children Act 2004. This permits any of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State to provide information for the index. The Department for Work and Pensions, as data controller for the child benefit records that it holds, will provide basic child information from its child benefit records. This will include the name and address of the child benefit claimant, as proxy for parental details. The Department of Health will provide basic child information and GP practice contact details, and my department will provide basic child information and contact details of any educational establishment the child attends.
	I assure noble Lords that under the terms of Section 12 of the Children Act, no personal or medical records can be included on the index. I also want to make it clear that the draft regulations provide safeguards against the collection and processing of disproportionate amounts of information. We will be taking only a sample of data records. The sample size will be no greater than is sufficient for statistically valid testing of data accuracy. The information will not be used in any operational sense. The output of the trials will be a summary report on the outcome of the tests, and it will not include any personal data that could identify an individual.
	In addition, we will ensure that there will be stringent security measures controlling the physical security of the hardware and systems used to transmit and hold the data for testing. Only a strictly limited number of authorised staff from my department and its contractor will have access to it. The draft regulations provide that the information supplied for these tests will be retained for no more than three years, and we will ensure that it is securely destroyed once our use for it has ended.
	The regulations are a prudent and necessary first step in establishing an accurate and up-to-date information sharing index. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee and 27th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to outline the detail of these regulations. Much of what he has said repeats the announcement by the Secretary of State on 8 December last year and the information in the Explanatory Memorandum provided with the regulations.
	We on these Benches believe that the protection of our children, particularly vulnerable children, must be a genuine priority. We fully support the aims behind the Every Child Matters Green Paper and the 10-year strategy on childcare which propose the policy outcome that each child should "stay safe". We concur with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that poor communication between professionals from different agencies was a contributory factor in the death of Victoria Climbié. However, as the NSPCC has highlighted:
	"Costly information systems in themselves will not protect children".
	We have continually expressed serious concerns about the scope of the proposed shared index database, and have highlighted problems that have not been thought through. In drawing these regulations to the attention of the House in its 27th report, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee only emphasises that our concerns have not diminished. Indeed, they have increased, particularly as we envisage potential conflicts and overlaps with current proposed legislation. As my honourable friend Tim Loughton said:
	"The government's nanny-state approach will do nothing to safeguard the children most at risk. We should be concentrating on the most vulnerable children who are on child protection registers, in care or in homes with a record of domestic violence . . . We opposed this clause when it was proposed in the Children's Act 2004. It is bureaucratic nonsense and ID cards for children by the back door".
	We are not against the principle of databases; we need them to protect vulnerable children. But they should contain only minimal information and cannot be a substitute for professionals talking to one another.
	In our debates on the Identity Cards Bill, we have looked carefully at what the Home Affairs Committee referred to as the,
	"proliferation of large-scale databases",
	including the potential database we are discussing today. I remind your Lordships of that now well known quote from the Information Commissioner that we are in danger of sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
	There are around 11 million children in Britain today; according to the Government, 3 million to 4 million are vulnerable. We share the concerns of the Information Commissioner that the Government have failed to justify setting up a universal database covering 100 per cent of children, irrespective of whether there are concerns about individual children.
	Along with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we question whether the database complies with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right to respect for private and family life. We believe that the scope of the index should be limited to vulnerable children only, with clear limits on the use of information that is held, and that a universal database is not a proportionate response to the pressing social need it is trying to address.
	During debates on the Children Bill, my noble friend Lord Howe stated that the index is,
	"a charter for Ministers to devise information-sharing schemes of an unspecified and potentially far-reaching nature, overriding common-law rights of confidentiality, and without necessarily paying heed to the fundamental principles of data protection . . . I have very serious difficulties with this . . . There are numerous practical questions as well which remain unresolved".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1217.]
	I hope that the Minister will today be able to provide better answers to our concerns than the ones that have failed to assure us to date.
	The regulations allow for trials of sharing information to be implemented. What system will these trials use? Are the systems already in place and, if not, what is their estimated cost? Are they the same computers and databases that will be used should this index be rolled out nationally? What assessment have the Government made following concerns expressed by us and the Information Commissioner on the administrative burden of capturing information on all children, and the resources required to follow up concerns? The Government's record with large databases to date has not exactly provided a glowing reference.
	Security and access to information on a local scale, let alone a national one, can have serious consequences should it fall into the wrong hands. I hear what the Minister says about the restricted number of people who will have access to the database, but what training will they have and what checks will the Government insist on? Will the people operating the trials, with access to the shared information, have Criminal Records Bureau checks? Who will decide if these trials, let alone the national project, will comply with the Data Protection Act and ensure that personal data are accurate, relevant, secure, and, as the noble Lord said, not kept longer than necessary? Will children be allowed to access the records held on them in the index under the Data Protection Act?
	The ability to flag up a "cause for concern" can mean different things to different people. Worries have been raised that this subjective view could also lead to a danger that some care professionals may add it as a defensive measure, particularly in today's increasingly litigious society. While one would hope that all care professionals are honourable and careful enough not to do so, what steps will the Government take should this arise? We must avoid a tick-box mentality when dealing with our vulnerable children.
	I am conscious of time; for the reasons I have mentioned, and more, we opposed these measures during the passage of the Children Bill. I hope that the Minister can at least give us assurances that if the proposed pilot schemes do not pass muster, the Government will consider returning to the drawing board rather than pushing on with what we already view as a flawed scheme.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the regulations to us. I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. During the passage of the Children Bill we, too, opposed this clause and argued that it was quite unnecessary to set up so large a database. We also felt that in so far as any database was required, it should be limited to vulnerable children. That said, the Government are determined to attempt to set up this huge database. We should remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, that there are 11 million children and we are effectively aiming to gather basic identifying information such as, the Minister told us, the name, address, gender, date of birth and unique identifying number of children. Basic identifying information about the child's parent or carer and contact details for services involved with the child—the school, GP and other services—will be included. There will also be a facility for practitioners to share information with others to flag up areas of concern—there was a lot of discussion during the Children Bill on that.
	Ultimately, the aim is to establish this huge database—an identity card for every child, in effect. However, it is sensible that there should be trials before the Government proceed with this. In that sense, as far as these regulations are concerned, we on these Benches feel that it is sensible to see the trial go forward before we endorse what the Government are doing. We are particularly pleased that the draft regulations that will be issued later in the summer will be issued in the light of at least some of the early developments from the trial. I understand that there will be extensive consultation on these draft regulations, which is vital. We are also reassured that this database is seen very firmly as a trial and that all the data will be securely destroyed after the trial has been concluded.
	Our concerns when we discussed the Children Bill were about maintaining the accuracy of the information, particularly the difficulty of keeping tabs on a population which moves rapidly around in rented accommodation, as is true of vulnerable children. Keeping up-to-date information on addresses, schools and GPs will not be easy. Undoubtedly, a key feature of the trial will be to see how far the data from different sources can be married up. It is essential that the trial includes a substantial example of this highly mobile population.
	It is particularly unclear, other than through the process of reconciling conflicting information, how far and how it is proposed to test accuracy and reliability. I am also unclear about how far aspects of this database will be available to the general public. I assume that information about the name of the child, its gender, address, GP and school contacts would, through the Data Protection Act, be available for the individual parent or carer—indeed, as the child is older, for the child itself—to see to assess its accuracy. I do not know how far the trial will be using that ultimate test of accuracy to test the quality of the information as it goes along. Will it include an opportunity for individuals concerned to see the data about themselves?
	Equally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned, there was considerable concern about preventing others from obtaining information—I am particularly concerned about vulnerable children or mothers who have been open to abuse and so forth. It is important that the trial tests security systems. The database must be secure and cannot be accessed by non-authorised personnel. I assume that that will also be part of the trial.
	Finally, one comes to the whole question of how much the trial will cost. Estimates given in the Explanatory Memorandum suggest that during the period of setting up the database from 2005-08 there will be a one-off implementation cost of £224 million and that the annual operating costs will subsequently be £41 million. I am very sceptical about those figures. Given the costs of implementing the identity cards database that we have seen—somewhere in the region of 25 per cent of the population will be put on the identity cards database—we ought to be talking in billions rather than millions. However, those are the costs that have been put down. I hope that the trial will provide accurate estimates of the cost of putting such databases together.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rehearsed her party's opposition to these regulations, which I fully understand. However, I think that she would agree, since I always aim to promote the maximum possible area of consensus when I speak to your Lordships, that proceeding by way of trial as we are and as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reiterated, is by far the best way of going about testing a number of the propositions that she laid down and many of the concerns that she raised. Of course, the areas of concern that she raised are legitimate—in many cases, to do with the robustness of a large project of this kind. It is precisely for those reasons, to bottom out a number of the operational, practical and cost issues—including those cost issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, a moment ago—that we are proceeding by way of trial.
	The robustness of the data is important as are issues to do with confidentiality and cost; hence the pilot. We intend to engage in extensive consultation as the pilot proceeds and I give an undertaking today that I will seek to engage both of the Opposition parties in that consultation. Indeed, once we have early results from the trials, I will speak to both noble Baronesses to share more information—on the basis that it is not more widely shared and is destroyed immediately afterwards.
	I will take the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, one by one, but I may need to respond to some of them afterwards in writing. She asked why the index was not limited to vulnerable children but would be extended to all 11 million children. Although I was not party to the previous debate, I understand that this issue has been rehearsed before when the Children Act was undergoing its passage. We believe that it is important and appropriate to cover every child because it is estimated that, at any one time, 3 million to 4 million children and young people need additional targeted and specialist services. It is not possible to predict accurately in advance which children will have such needs or which children will never have them. Any child or young person could require the support of those services at any time in their childhood. Moreover, we believe that all children have the right to the universal services of education and primary health care and the databases will show whether or not they are receiving those services and will then help trigger local action to ensure that they do receive them.
	In our view, a universal index is much less stigmatising and therefore much easier to operate than one that is simply focused on children who are on the at-risk register because no threshold decisions have to be made concerning who should or should not be on the register.
	The noble Baroness asked whether the index complies with the European Convention on Human Rights concerning privacy. Any measure that might constitute interference with ECHR rights to privacy must go no further than is necessary to the pursuit of the legitimate aim. The Government have opinion from Treasury counsel that supports our view that the inclusion of all children on index systems is proportionate and justified and will not interfere with Article 8 of the ECHR. The type and amount of information on the index is stringently restricted with no case information recorded.
	The cost issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I simply reiterate the figures that she herself gave to the House, which we have made publicly available. We will keep a close eye on those costs as we conduct the tests and trials and will be happy to report back to the House further.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and her colleagues have claimed that the information sharing index was a system of ID cards by stealth. The objectives of the index are to support local agencies and their duties to co-operate to promote the well-being of children, to safeguard them and promote their welfare as set down in Sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, and no more. There is no comparability with the ID card. The purpose of the index is to improve services to children with a strong emphasis on early intervention and prevention where children have additional needs. The data about children to be held is clearly specified and limited. The objectives are quite distinct from those of ID cards, which are in any case for post 16 year-olds.
	How will we be certain that the index will be secure? The index is designed from the bottom up with security in mind. Robust security measures relating to access to, and misuse of, data will be introduced. These issues will be reflected in the regulations, guidance and staff training that will govern the operation of the index. Unauthorised access will be prevented by using a combination of measures. First, strong, two-factor authentication involving the need to possess a physical token and to know a secret password will be used. A good analogy would be chip and PIN, which is used to authorise payments. This will prevent the guessing of passwords and other forms of attack on password access, and will also render a stolen token useless. Secondly, all users will be trained in the importance of security and good security practice. They will be made aware that misuse of the index could result in disciplinary action or a criminal conviction.
	The noble Baroness asked how we would stop unauthorised people gaining access. All users will have their use of the system monitored and there will be an audit trail of their use of the system. All users will have to state a reason for accessing a child's records, and all access to any data will be recorded and reviewed regularly for suspicious patterns of access. Misuse of the system will be detected. Children who have a reason for not being traced—for example, where there is a threat of domestic violence or where the child has a celebrity status—will be able to have their details concealed. No case information will be held on the index.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked who will have access to the index. Practitioner access will be granted according to the role of the practitioner. All practitioners with access will have to have had relevant training and undergone appropriate CRB checks. Based on trailblazer experience, we estimate that between 300,000 and 400,000 users will access the index. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill which is currently before your Lordships provides that the operators or administrators of the index be included in the top category of regulated activity under the Bill's proposed barring scheme. They would not only be subject to mandatory checks, but, if this led to inclusion on the children's barred list, also be barred from employment.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked me whether the index satisfies the requirements of the Data Protection Act. We believe that it does. The full regulations and statutory guidance will clearly set out that all information on the index will be handled in a manner that is consistent with the Data Protection Act, and they will address issues of accuracy, retention, security and confidentiality.
	I was asked who was responsible for the index. Accountability for a child's records will lie with the local authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident. This includes responsibility for ensuring that the index is operated in line with the regulations and statutory guidance, and that all data are current and up to date.
	I was asked by the noble Baroness about training. I can give a commitment that all users will undergo training before they have access to the index. Included in that will be training on legal responsibilities. The costs of this training are included in the published costs of £224 million for implementation.
	I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, what systems would be used. Only specialist, closed systems for data analysis will be used. Only analysts will have access. The data will be securely eradicated after analysis.
	I reiterate why these regulations are before us today. They provide for data matching trials as an initial step in establishing the information sharing index. The index is a tool to help support improved communication between practitioners working with children and young people. By knowing who else is involved, practitioners will be better placed to help children, young people and their families get the help they need more quickly.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I asked the Minister what access a parent will have to the index to check personal data.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that question to hand, but I will let the noble Baroness know as soon as I can after the debate.
	I hope that what I have said will provide assurance that we are not rushing into implementing the index without addressing the concerns that have been raised. I have also stressed that the provisions in these regulations limit the amount of information collected to no more than is necessary to establish a verifiable data match. The regulations impose an absolute limit on the retention of the records, and they will be securely destroyed once they are no longer needed for their purpose.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Act 2003 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2006

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this order is required to amend Section 33(5) of the Child Support Act 1991. The effect of the amendment is to substitute the reference in Section 33(5) to,
	"the register of judgments held in accordance with Section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984"
	with,
	"the register held in accordance with Section 98 of the Courts Act 2003".
	Much of the recent debate about the future of the Child Support Agency has focused on ensuring that it has adequate powers of enforcement. This order is merely a tidying-up exercise. It will allow the CSA's current powers to continue.
	The amendment is consequential to the commencement of Section 98(1)(c) of the Courts Act 2003, which comes into force on 6 April, when, under the provisions of Section 109(3) and Schedule 10 to the Courts Act 2003, Section 73 of the County Courts Act will be repealed.
	On 6 April, the register of county court judgments will be replaced by the register of judgments, orders and fines. The register will continue to be kept for the department by Registry Trust Ltd, which has satisfactorily maintained the register of county court judgments since 1985 and the register of CSA liability orders since 1991. Registry Trust Ltd is a non-profit-making company limited by guarantee which operates under the terms of a contract with the Lord Chancellor. This agreement is in the process of being revised to ensure adequate provisions are in place to support the new regulations and to protect the taxpayer's interests in relation to the transfer of undertakings to another contractor, if necessary.
	The purpose of Section 33(5) of the Child Support Act 1991 is to allow the Child Support Agency to register any liability orders made for the recovery of arrears of maintenance payments on the register of county court judgments as if they were county court judgments registered under Section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984. The register of county court judgments is a public register that is open to inspection by anyone, and the presence of an unpaid liability in the register may affect the registered debtor's ability to obtain employment, credit or other services.
	The effect of this order will be that the CSA will continue to register its liability orders as it currently does, but they will form part of the register created under Section 98 of the Courts Act 2003; that is, the register of judgments, orders and fines. I commend the draft order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as the Minister has just said, this order contains a consequential amendment to the repeal of Section 73 of the County Courts Act. Its effect is that the Child Support Agency will still be able to register its liability orders, but instead of forming part of the register of county court judgments, they will form part of the register of judgments, orders and fines that was established under Section 98 of the Courts Act 2003. This order is purely a consequential amendment and, as such, we support its approval by your Lordships' House.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his great support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for smiling at me across the Chamber and nodding his assent.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Chancellor (Transfer of Functions and Supplementary Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2006

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1 March be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the draft order supplements the Constitutional Reform Act, which received Royal Assent almost a year ago on 24 March 2005, and most of which will come into force on Monday 3 April. That Act modernises the constitution of this country by reforming the post of Lord Chancellor, abolishing the Lord Chancellor's traditional role as a judge and head of the judiciary, and providing for the establishment of a new Judicial Appointments Commission, a Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and a new judicial disciplinary system. It will also lead to the abolition of the judicial role of your Lordships' House and the creation of a new Supreme Court.
	The 2005 Act modifies many statutory powers of the Lord Chancellor so that when these affect the judiciary they are exercised in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, or with the concurrence of the Lord Justice, or are transferred to the Lord Chief Justice to be exercised in consultation with, or with the concurrence of, the Lord Chancellor. Most of the provisions relate only to England and Wales, but there are some tribunals whose jurisdiction covers all of Great Britain or the whole of the United Kingdom, so that in certain cases the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland also have functions conferred on them.
	The way in which various functions have been modified or transferred is in accordance with the concordat agreed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice and follows detailed discussions between officials and a working group of judges chaired by Lady Justice Arden and containing wide representation from the judiciary. Schedule 4 to the Constitutional Reform Act contains 407 provisions amending different functions of the Lord Chancellor in primary legislation up to 2003, but does not capture functions enacted or amended in legislation in the 2004–05 Session. With few exceptions, it also does not cover functions in secondary legislation. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has therefore made and laid before Parliament an order amending some 80 functions of the Lord Chancellor in secondary legislation. That order is subject to the negative procedure. This No. 2 order is an affirmative order which can be made only after being approved in draft by both Houses and amends functions in primary legislation or secondary legislation that can be amended only by the affirmative procedure.
	The order contains three schedules. Schedule 1 amends primary legislation. Here the most significant function affected is the Lord Chancellor's role as a Lord of Appeal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1908, which will be abolished. That was not done in the Constitutional Reform Act because that Act repeals the Appellate Jurisdiction Act as a whole, but the repeal will not be commenced until we have established the Supreme Court in 2009. In the mean time, the Law Lords will continue to sit as a committee of this House, but the Lord Chancellor will no longer be able to preside over them.
	This order therefore brings to an end hundreds of years of legal and constitutional history in which the Lord Chancellor has presided as a judge over this House in its judicial capacity. It completes work done by the Constitutional Reform Act, which abolishes his role as a judge at the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown Court. The other functions affected are in legislation passed in 2004–05, which is amended in order to conform to the requirements of the concordat and the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act.
	Schedule 2 amends in the same way a small number of pieces of secondary legislation that can be amended only by affirmative order. Schedule 3 corrects a slip in the drafting of paragraph 199 of Schedule 4 to the Constitutional Reform Act, which amends Section 146 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but omits a necessary reference to members of the copyright tribunal being appointed as well as removed. I commend this draft order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1 March be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this statutory instrument emphasises yet again the absurdity of the attempt by the Prime Minister on 12 June 2003 to abolish the historic office of Lord Chancellor by press release. Having said that, I should also say that we supported the Government in the Constitutional Reform Act. We think the ending of the Lord Chancellor's judicial function is not only inevitable in the present circumstances, but in fact the right thing to do.
	It is this order, rather than the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act itself, which brings to an end the historic role of the Lord Chancellor as a judge. While I entirely approve of the principle, it is perhaps a moment for nostalgia. The office of Lord Chancellor has been a great judicial office in this country for several hundred years. I speak with particular nostalgia as someone who practised in the Chancery Division, because for many years, well into the 19th century, the principal judicial role of the Lord Chancellor was not in the House of Lords but as a judge of the Chancery Court. In those circumstances, I recognise that the making of this order is a historic act. We look forward to the new role of the Lord Chancellor, principally as a departmental Minister, as a change we approve of, but, in saying goodbye to the Lord Chancellor's judicial role, we recognise also that this is a moment when a long period of history comes to an end.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this order marks a significant milestone in the Government's plans to implement the changes contained in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As the Minister has stated, Schedule 1 abolishes the functions of the Lord Chancellor as a Lord of Appeal under the Appellate Jurisdictions Act.
	This order is made under Section 19 of the Constitutional Reform Act, an Act whose provisions were much disputed in your Lordships' House. I have no intention whatever, your Lordships will be relieved to hear, to seek to reconstruct those debates tonight, let alone pass judgment on them.
	Under the order, Parliament has given the Lord Chancellor the power to transfer his functions in the way set out. I want to raise only one issue, an issue that relates to paragraph 7.5 of the attached Explanatory Memorandum. That paragraph says that,
	"the transfer and modification of the Lord Chancellor's functions have been discussed in detail with a working group containing representatives from all levels of the judiciary".
	Would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that such discussions have taken place since the Act received Royal Assent rather than being part of the negotiations leading to the concordat between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor? Could the Minister also say whether, as a result of such discussions, he is sure that the judiciary are satisfied with the practicalities of such a transfer of functions as proposed in the order?
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, expressed a degree of nostalgia in the Lord Chancellor's relinquishing these functions. It so happens that this is the only change that we thought necessary—though we believed it would have been better achieved by constitutional convention.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think it is absolutely appropriate that the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland, draw attention to this moment in which history is being made. Of course, it follows on from the debates we had earlier, but it is a moment to pause for reflection and perhaps it is a pity that there are only a handful of noble Lords in the House for this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about the discussion and approval of the draft orders. I mentioned in my introductory remarks that there was a working group of judges chaired by Lady Justice Arden and a group that contained wide representation from the judiciary. I can confirm that the discussions with the group chaired by Lady Justice Arden began very shortly after the Act received Royal Assent, in March 2005, and the group and the Lord Chief Justice have approved this order with no qualifications.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.35 pm.]

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 65 [Ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 136:
	Page 26, line 40, leave out "commencement" and insert "Royal Assent"

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it, including Amendments Nos. 140 to 142 and 144.
	I will deal first with Amendment No. 136. As we rehearsed in Committee, the figures for some applications for the rights of way open to vehicles vary according to source, possibly because they cover different aspects of the same problem. GLEAM calculates that by May 2005, some 1,500 applications to change byways into byways open to all traffic had been received by councils in England. The bulk of those were lodged after December 2003.
	I have studied Hansard for 28 February and read the letter from the Minister to my honourable friend Jim Paice. These, together with GLEAM's figures, give me cause for concern that if the system is not put in place quickly, some local authorities will find themselves faced with quantities of applications that will require a great deal of expenditure. I understand that the Minister may have some technical difficulties with substituting the date for Royal Assent, but can he give us some guidance on the likely date of commencement or the factors that will determine it?
	I turn now to the big debate on Amendment No. 140, and apologise to your Lordships that my papers are not quite in the order that they should be. As we said in Committee, across England and Wales local authorities are struggling to produce their rights of way improvement plans. They are dealing mainly with public paths, but access—for those on horseback, cycle, or two or four-wheeled vehicles, and for the disabled—is an important part of the workload. I understand that six to eight authorities have completed their plans, but many others have not even started; when they do they will use outside agencies.
	One factor that contributes to delay is the sheer number of applications that have been received for routes to be designated under the CROW Act. Many of those applications will have been carefully and thoroughly researched; they will have been relatively easy to validate and prepare for inclusion on the definitive map. Others, however, will be the subject of contention and will require many hours of skilled administration work to be completed. Still others will have been lodged on flimsy evidence, but will none the less have to go through the process.
	In Committee, the main discussion was about the rights of way used by mechanically propelled vehicles, and many figures were quoted. According to the Minister on 9 December 2003, the number of claims outstanding for routes to be registered as byways open to all traffic stood at some 992. Again, in Committee I asked the Minister whether they were single or multiple claims; I have still not received an answer and I would be grateful for one tonight. By 19 May 2005, that number was 207. In other words, 785 claims, plus an unknown number that arrived after 9 December, had been processed and either accepted or rejected.
	The Government propose that, in the main, applications received after 9 May 2005 will be null and void. Again, I wish to put on record that I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that there is a problem; the current difference between us is the date on which we wish this to be considered. From that date, their proposal would have left some 207 to be processed. Our amendment would remove that 207 from the arena and would, I hope, allow certain local authorities to use their available labour to deal with the backlog on public paths. Apart from that, it would reduce the number of appeals against the rejection of applications lodged between December 2003 and May 2005. That would save time, resources and money in a situation where many local authorities are financially stretched.
	This reclassification of rights of way is not a brand new concept that this Bill thrusts on the unsuspecting public—far from it. Reclassification has been on the cards since 1968 when the Countryside Act was passed. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 brought in the requirement to reclassify as either a bridleway or a BOAT. The definition of a RUPP goes back further to 1949, when it was described as,
	"a highway other than a public path, bridleway or footpath used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used".
	RUPPs were never intended for vehicle use. Indeed, in the absence of other evidence since 1981, RUPPs have been considered as bridleways with no vehicle rights at all.
	The CROW Act 2000 introduced the concept of a cut-off date, which would clear up the issue once and for all. This NERC Bill proposes, rightly in our view, to bring that cut-off date forward for applications, not existing rights. I was, therefore, slightly surprised at the Minister's response in Committee to my Amendment No. 318A, now Amendment No. 140. It seemed odd that the context of this debate and the chain of events leading up to it had not led him to use a chance to clear up this issue once and for all. At that stage I was grateful for the support of other noble Lords.
	Our Amendment No. 140 aims to limit the exemption of claims from the extinguishment provisions to strike a fair balance between the change in the law and knowledge of that change. Claims are no more than an attempt to test the procedure. Interception of claims by extinguishing rights at the commencement date, and not before, is not retrospection.
	The basic point is that the more applications to which this law applies, the clearer the state of affairs regarding rights of way will become. The more applications that are left exempt from the extinguishments, the more rights of way will be open to abuse, as their users will know that they are in little or no danger of prosecution. The noble Lord may correct me, but as far as I am aware no prosecution has ever been made under Section 34A of the Crow Act, which amends the Road Traffic Act to clarify use of rights of way. Policing those rights of way is notoriously difficult. We now have the opportunity to draw a clear date, which will send out a message to all of those who use any kind of right of way to be aware of the limits of their legal entitlements.
	In Committee, the Minister also stated that the use of the cut-off date was intended to,
	"act as a deterrent to claims submitted simply to thwart the aims of the legislation".—[Official Report, 28/ 2/06; col. 197.]
	The Minister suggested that it was only when the Bill was published that the aims of legislation were clear. Surely that is na-ve in the face of the facts. I think we should look at the facts. Since consultation first suggested controls of recreation off-road vehicles, many applications for byways have been made in order to avoid the legislation and we have assessed the figures, which jump from 657 pre-9 December to 992 on 17 January, a figure told to me by Jim Knight. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister would update us from 17 January. In Committee, we were left unsure as to the exact number of claims that flooded in after December 2003. We can be sure that there was a flood of applications and that it is no coincidence that they came in after consultation on the Bill. If we are generous, however, and take the Minister's figures for the claims outstanding on 19 May 2005, there will be 207 left to deal with. Our amendment would extinguish those claims and reduce the appeals against the rejection of applications lodged between December 2003 and May 2005. It would, I believe, save precious resources and money from local authorities, to which I shall refer at the end of my contribution.
	I do not think I can paint a chain of events more clearly. But I can turn to new evidence that has come to our attention. The following letter shows what has happened in just one parish. If the December date were adopted, it would solve these problems and about 1,000 similar cases around the country. The Minister will be interested to hear that I received a letter, written on 14 March, from Dr Karen Hinckley from the Ashover Parish Council, up in Derbyshire, not far from where he and I reside. It brings to our attention the problem that we are now debating and states:
	"The motorcyclists have inundated the County Council within the last two years with a huge barrage of applications for Modification Orders to upgrade all bridleways and some footpaths into Byways Open to all Traffic (BOATs). There are twenty such applications in this Parish alone. The applications cover all bridleways, and continuous paths, within the parish; if granted, there would not be one single path that horse-riders or cyclists could use without meeting motorised vehicles. County and Parish Councils are being overwhelmed by the applications which we believe were submitted because of proposed changes in legislation. Apparently, neighbouring Parishes are in a similar situation with a massive increase in applications. Nobody has the money to challenge them legally".
	It goes on to state:
	"Trials bikes damage all types of wildlife and destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. The paths used are totally unsuitable in every way for motorised traffic. Often motorbikes pass pedestrians at great speed, showering them with mud and stones and legitimate users and local residents are frightened by them".
	It is sad to record that,
	"Trials bikers are abusive and threatening towards residents who attempt to stop them. Every weekend trials bikers are reported to the Police who are at a loss as to what to do . . . The trials bikers contribute nothing but their damage is huge—the estimate for surface repair for just one local bridle path is £40,000 and no-one can afford it".
	There are many other examples that I could give. We are very concerned about this issue and I bring it to the attention of the House. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 140, I shall not go over the ground covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I, too, received the letter from which she quoted, and it indicates that a huge number of applications are in the pipeline. That pipeline may not so far have reached Defra, but there is no doubt whatever that a large number of multiple applications is being made speculatively by those who ride motorbikes, quad bikes and other vehicles and drive four-wheel off-road vehicles.
	I want to emphasise the huge number of applications facing local councils. Those councils employ a very small number of rights-of-way staff, who should be employed in updating maps and working to make byways and footpaths more accessible by all classes of users. However, their time and energy is being taken up with the applications and with all the complaints to which the abuse of rights of way gives rise. Therefore, a small group of officials is, on the one hand, being charged with making rights of way better and more accessible and, on the other, is being burdened with representations about new claims and with the complaints to which they give rise.
	Can the Minister give us some up-to-date figures relating to the number of claims in the system? The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, quoted a figure of 207. I think that that is completely wrong—I guess that the number is nearer to 2,000. That may refer to multiple claims, but we want to know how many footpaths and byways are the subject of claims.
	There is no doubt at all that the claims were triggered by the consultation document published in December 2003. The intention of the legislation proposed in that White Paper was that the old rules would cease to have effect. Under those rules, if you could prove previous horse and cart use, you would be able to establish vehicular rights—that is, the rights were somehow transferable to users of motorcycles and four-wheel-drive vehicles. Most of the claims were put in as a pre-emptive move by the off-road fraternity to take advantage of the old rules as long as they lasted.
	Can the Minister tell me whether any human rights issues are involved in going back to 2003, as this amendment proposes, or in sticking with the date of 19 May 2005, as currently proposed by the Government? It seems to me that a human right over anything should be exercised on the basis that a person's use of his human right does not allow him to prejudice someone else's opportunity to exercise that right. I direct the Minister's attention to a case that appeared in the newspapers last week concerning some travellers in Leeds who occupied a recreation ground. The travellers brought the case on the basis that turning them off the recreation ground would be an abuse of their human rights. The judge threw out the case. He said that public money should not have been spent on bringing the case because the travellers' occupation of the recreation ground prevented other people using the ground or frightened them away from doing so. So one set of people cannot insist on their human rights if, in so doing, they prevent another set of people exercising their human rights.
	Will the Minister tell us what human rights objections there are to going back to 2003? On whose opinion is it based? Was it a government official, or has counsel's opinion been sought by the Government? Are we talking about hard facts or somebody's supposition? What sort of authority does the person exercise in giving his opinion?
	We are talking about someone enjoying the right to walk along a footpath or to ride a horse—in other words, the right enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside, which is the principal purpose of rights of way. Other people may come along, saying, "We will destroy the surface of this footpath. We will make a hell of a lot of noise. We will terrorise people and make it impossible to ride horses". Does that not create a situation, whereby one group's human rights come into direct conflict with another group's human rights? Can we have an answer to that question? We are happy to wait for it because we can return to the matter at Third Reading. We want to know why the Minister raised an objection. I was not convinced by what he said, and want to know how many claims there are. How will the Government deal with the problem of local parish councils having to fight off claims that will cost lots of money when they have neither the staff nor the money to do so?

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is no question that the legislation effectively started with the publication of the Green Paper, not the Bill. The off-road fraternity saw that legislation that would tighten up the use of byways was coming, so huge numbers of them—we do not know how many—put in their applications. I urge the Minister to accept that that is the logical start of the cut-off date, rather than the publication of the Bill.

Lord Haworth: My Lords, I, too, add my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. We are now down to a small point about which of the two dates is the most acceptable. We are talking about a decision that impacts on how much damage will be done to the footpath network. I have evidence that the difference between 19 May 2005 and the amendment's suggestion of 9 December 2003 will affect as many as 1,000 tracks in England and Wales. We are already dealing with a retrospective date, so the principle of a date in the past is conceded by everybody, including the Government. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to find it in his heart to accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. There would be widespread support across the House from those of us who care about the green lanes and networks.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend's amendment. As a point of principle, I do not approve of retrospective legislation, but as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, described succinctly, we are talking about special circumstances. If the Government do not accept the amendment, that will allow those intolerable activities to continue, and one of the major objectives—indeed, opportunities—of the Bill will be lost. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take on board those important points.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I apologise for having momentarily been out of the Chamber during the debate. I have corresponded—as has everyone in your noble Lordships' House this evening, I am sure—with a wide variety of people. I have done my best to reply to every letter I have received. It struck me in the early stages that they all came from the north of England. There was clearly a degree of co-ordination, but they were highly individual letters. I have heard far fewer arguments from those in favour of easing the process. With one or two exceptions, they have been nothing like as individually or rigorously argued. In some cases, they have had their letters paid for by one of the umbrella organisations providing briefing; I regarded that as peculiarly careless.
	In the same way that my noble friend and those on the Liberal Democrat Benches made reference to Ashover, I can testify to a significant amount of correspondence from the village of Broadchalk in the next valley to my own in Wiltshire. There is considerable sympathy and openness towards the use of motor vehicles of one sort or another, going back 30 or 40 years, but absolute despair at every single possible thoroughfare in the parish being asked for. The village needs to raise £400,000 for a new school. It may be that the sense of oneness and integrity in the village that springs from having to raise the money for the school goes hand in hand with the sense of integrity that comes from the village being under siege in this particular way. I do not think the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of feeling; there are a wide variety of witnesses from all over the country to the consequences of this. I notice that each time one speaks to somebody in favour of easing the process, they are blissfully ignorant of what is being done in their name by some people.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I hope the Government and my noble friend will think very hard about the amendment before us. As we have heard, there is a great deal of strong feeling, and there is no doubt that this will affect hundreds of footpaths and bridleways. I am sure that is not the Government's intention. It is not only the peace and calmness of horse riders and walkers that will be affected; it is even more fundamental than that. One has only to look at some of these so-called rights of way—particularly in the upland areas of northern England—to see the devastating effect on some of those tracks, sometimes to such an extent that they can no longer be used as footpaths or bridleways. As my noble friend has already said, this is not a point of principle. We all concede the principle. There has to be retrospection; it is only a question of what would be the appropriate date. The appropriate date—which will save more of our green lanes, bridleways and footpaths—is something we really ought to try to achieve.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I wonder if I should be hiding. I do not understand all that I have heard. I can understand certain aspects, but not other factual aspects. What I find absolutely fascinating is that the figures being bandied around do not agree. There must be some form of agreement somewhere along the line and I hope the Minister will be able to address this. The motorised byway users have been portrayed as opportunists in both Houses. It has been implied that they are villains, attempting to add new byways throughout the countryside and overloading the resources of local government. I think it is necessary to paint a slightly different picture. The CROW Act recognised that the definitive maps are inaccurate, and it laid down a requirement for them to be corrected by 2026. That was, in effect, a request by the Government for claims for modification orders to be submitted over that period. In some areas, groups of responsible users have got together and carried out extensive research. That takes many years to complete, but the noble Baroness says 2003.
	We all know that it is not possible to claim a new byway. The ROW being claimed are existing routes, already in use, that have never been correctly recorded due to the inaction of highway authorities who have, with Government knowledge, avoided their clear duty under the Highways Act to correct the DMs. We have heard about certain areas in Derbyshire. The Peak Rights of Way Initiative objectively researched its area and discovered that while there are only three BOATs on the DM, there should in fact be about 120. Is that right? I do not know.
	There has not been a tidal wave of more than 2,000 claims. There are currently about 1,000 claims on the books of Highways Agency, of which about half were already in existence before these proposals. The Countryside Agency has estimated that at least 20,000 claims will be necessary to correct the DMs. Again, I do not know. Clearly, with the proposals in the Bill, claimed byways will become restricted byways instead of BOATs. However the claims—that is the estimated 20,000 claims—will still be necessary. A senior Defra official has stated:
	"We anticipate that in future all document based applications that would have been for BOATs will instead be for restricted byways. Therefore it is likely that the numbers of Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO) for restricted byways will be broadly the same as they would have been for BOATs".
	These facts paint a very different picture, and the noble Baroness is being slightly unfair on responsible people who have simply done what the Government asked them to do.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall begin with Amendment No. 136, which is linked with Amendments Nos. 141, 142, 144 and 147, all of which are tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. In seeking to substitute "Royal Assent" for the word "commencement" wherever it occurs in Clause 65, the purpose of these amendments is to remove any flexibility that the Government would otherwise have in commencing this clause. This would have the effect of making it impossible for us to synchronise the commencement of this clause, Clause 65, with implementation of the restricted byway regulations and the associated commencement order for Sections 47 to 51 of the CROW Act.
	On day six in Committee, I attempted to explain to the Committee that before Part 6 of the Bill may be commenced, the restricted byways provisions in Sections 47 to 51 of the CROW Act 2000 will need to be in force. In order for the Bill's rights of way provisions to work properly, regulations making amendments to other legislation are also necessary. The reason for this is that Clause 65 seeks to extinguish vehicular rights of way over restricted byways. Section 47 of CROW effectively reclassifies all RUPPs as restricted byways. If Section 47 of CROW has not been commenced before Clause 65 of this Bill takes effect, RUPPs will not be caught by the extinguishment, and any vehicular rights over them will remain, which I do not think is the intention of the majority of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This is particularly important in respect of commencement in Wales, where, because of administrative arrangements, it may not be possible to commence the restricted byway provisions quite as soon as in England.
	I am pleased to report that the restricted byways regulations were debated and approved in this House and in the other place last week. Because of the need to co-ordinate the commencement of both sets of legislation, the need to give two weeks' notice of the commencement date in the restricted byway commencement order and the fact that we do not yet know on what the date the Bill will receive Royal Assent, the Government must have precise control over the date of commencement of Part 6. We can do this only by providing for a separate commencement order. When will that date of commencement be? It will be a matter of weeks after Royal Assent, at most. The key issue is the cut-off date, because all claims after that date will be determined under the new legislation.
	Government Amendment No. 173 restores the commencement clause to the way in which it was drafted before Report. As I have tried to explain, this is because we need to have control over the precise date of commencement of the Bill's right of way provisions in order to synchronise this with the commencement of the restricted byways regulations and the commencement order for Sections 47 to 51 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I assure the House that this is a purely technical matter of timetabling rather than any lack of intention on our part to bring these provisions into force at the earliest opportunity.
	The crux of the debate is Amendment No. 140, which seeks to replace the 19 May 2005 cut-off date for processing claims under the terms of the existing legislation with the date of 9 December 2003. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, says. There are great strengths of feeling in the country on both sides of the argument about this, even though the side of the argument that has been advanced in this amendment is the one that has the most support. The 9 December 2003 date is the date on which the Government first published the consultation proposals that eventually gave rise to the rights of way provisions in this Bill. We have established that we could in principle provide for all outstanding BOAT claims to be determined under the terms of the new legislation without that having retrospective effect, but the fact that there is no legal impediment to doing this does not, in our view, relieve us of the obligation to be fair and reasonable. Clearly, there are problems with the use of motor vehicles on rights of way that need to be addressed, and we believe that we are doing that in the Bill, but the House should not forget that government research into the use of motor vehicles on BOATs found that many byways are used by motor vehicles for recreation without any detriment to the character of the way or the enjoyment and safety of other users. Our response should therefore be proportionate, as well as fair and reasonable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about human rights issues—a very correct question, if I may respectfully say so. This is an issue not of human rights, but of possible retrospection. The date of 19 May 2005 is more acceptable than 9 December 2003 because the legislation was actually introduced on 19 May 2005, so there is less of an argument that there may be a legitimate expectation of claims being processed under the existing legislation. I repeat that the Government do not think that this is really a human rights issue; it is certainly not about the rights of one user of a right of way against another. The concern about human rights related to the rights of landowners and access to their property, and we hope that that issue has been dealt with in amendments that have already been made to the Bill. Frankly, it is a matter of fairness—I believe that this House always tries to be fair—to the genuine, good applications made since 2003. We would argue that the bulk of the bad applications came later and are covered by our date—19 May 2005.
	I am asked about figures. Let me do my best. I was asked about outstanding applications for byways open to all traffic, and whether those applications were single or multiple. Figures provided by local authorities for the whole of England tell us that some 497 applications for BOATs that were received before 9 December 2003 are still outstanding. We are still waiting for information from a very small number of authorities.
	The figure for applications for BOATs that are still outstanding and received before 20 January 2005—perhaps a significant date as it is the date on which the consultation ended—is 785. The figure for 19 May 2005 is 992.
	We do not know how many applications for byways open to all traffic have been submitted since 19 May last year. We have not made a tally of those claims because, of course, all claims between May and Royal Assent would be caught by the provision in any case. To carry out another tally would be, we believe—we may be right, we may be wrong—an unnecessary administrative burden on local authorities. As I say, applications submitted since 19 May will, under the transition arrangements set out in government Amendment No. 318 in Committee, be processed under the terms of the new legislation.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that it would be an unfair administrative burden on local authorities but, in my postbag, it is those very local authorities which are asking for the date to be put back to the date in the amendment. How have the Government arrived at the decision that it will be fairer to local authorities to stick with the date they are proposing rather than the date in the amendment?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think we are saying that it will be fairer to local authorities to stick with our view of the date in 2005; we are saying that it would be properly fairer to applicants—particularly genuine applicants. We know local authorities are under a great deal of pressure and that they would be under less pressure if the amendment was successful, but, as far as the actual issue of getting figures of applications made since 19 May 2005 is concerned, we have not bothered to do that on the basis that it would be an unnecessary task because all applications made since 19 May will be extinguished by provisions under the Government's present proposals.
	We have, for good reasons, already departed from an earlier commitment to allow a period for claims to be made prior to commencement. We have now provided for claims made up until the date the Bill was published on 19 May 2005 to be seen through to their conclusion under the terms of the existing legislation. I would argue that that date is a logical date to use because it is the date on which the Government made public the terms of the proposed legislation. Using the cut-off date of May 2005 has a clear and reasonable purpose in that it will act as a deterrent to claims submitted simply to thwart the aims of the legislation and will protect local authorities from being inundated with such claims.
	Of course I understand the reason for seeking to change the cut-off date to December 2003. The argument, frankly, is that users of mechanically propelled vehicles may—I emphasise "may"—have at this time started to lodge applications to have routes recorded on the definitive map and statement as byways open to all traffic in anticipation of possible legislation to restrict such applications, but, as a justification for applying the new legislation to all outstanding BOAT claims made since December 2003, it appears to us to be rather thin as at that time all the Government had done was to publish a consultation paper; they had not yet formed a view as to whether or not to legislate. Many of these claims were made in good faith. Many claimants would not have been aware of the Government's consultation at that time and it was long before we made clear our intention to change the way in which claims would be determined in future. Many of these claims are outstanding now only because local authorities have not dealt with them as promptly as they are required to do by statute. We believe that by going to the September 2003 date we will be adding unfairness to unfairness. We remain clear in our minds that the best date would be May 2005. I am asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, whether local authorities are not keen to have a cut-off date of 2003. Some of course may be, but often these are local authorities that have failed in their statutory duty—for understandable reasons—to re-classify their RUPPs and therefore have a lot of strong BOAT claims outstanding. No wonder they would be happy if the date of December 2003 was the decision of Parliament.
	That is all I want to say on Amendment No. 140. I have tried to explain why it is that the Government are not able to accept it.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, perhaps I may reflect on a couple of points. I raised the question of the incompatibility of one issue with another. The letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, read out, stressed that we are asking two sets of people who cannot co-exist to share a right of way.
	Noble Lords know that I am closely associated with the police. The police find it extremely difficult to prosecute people under present legislation. If somebody has submitted a claim which has not been dealt with, can they go on using that right of way with a motorised vehicle until that claim has been finalised?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's last question but I hope that I will find out what the rights are of someone in that position. But we are talking about claims: no more, no less than that; not claims that are necessarily granted, but claims nevertheless. Amendment No. 140 would cut off any chance of a good claim being positively answered. That is why the Government feel that it is as proportionate, fair and just as it can be to both sides of the argument, bearing in mind that there is a real problem regarding motorised vehicles.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps it would be helpful to him to be asked another question while help is on its way. A point made several times to me is that there have recently been a disproportionate number of applications in Cheshire and Wiltshire. Is that the Government's experience?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord was trying to be helpful, but now I do not know the answer to two questions not just one. I have no doubt that guidance will come.
	Amendment No. 148 would apply a sort of sustainability test, to be applied by the Secretary of State to all byway applications received between 9 December 2003 and the commencement of the legislation, and require a traffic regulation order to be imposed where the test found that motor vehicle use would be damaging or dangerous to other users. It also introduces an element of retrospectivity into the provisions, which seems unfair to single out those BOATs that were added to the network during this period and require them to satisfy an additional test.
	We have severe reservations about a statutory approach to assessing the suitability of byways that have already been established. A similar approach was taken to the classification of roads used as public paths in the Countryside Act 1968 and disputes about some of these reclassifications are still ongoing. Such a measure would be neither fair nor practicable. To be effective, these proposals would require local knowledge and a local presence on the ground to enforce the orders, neither of which requirements the Secretary of State could fulfil. If the Secretary of State made traffic regulation orders, which would have to be enforced at a local level, it would impose significant new burdens on local authorities.
	Of course, I appreciate the widespread concern about the byway claims which are submitted during the passage of the Bill and we have introduced transitional arrangements to deal with these. But I fall back on the argument that the Government have to be fair and reasonable in the way that they deal with users of rights of way. It would not be reasonable to go back over byway claims already determined by local authorities and to impose traffic regulation orders on those authorities. Local authorities have such powers that they can apply themselves, if appropriate. The traffic regulation orders in place on the Ridgeway have demonstrated how quickly orders can be put in place, provided once a firm decision is made, backed by a prompt but robust assessment of the relative need to hold a public inquiry. We have just issued fresh guidance to local authorities on the use of traffic regulation orders.
	I shall do my best to answer the two questions. Can claimants continue to use the rights of way while an appeal is being considered? Yes, but once the cut-off date is reached, those claimants can be prosecuted if they continue to use the right of way.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does that mean that, because the cut-off date is May 2005, immediately this legislation is enacted they can be prosecuted?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords. I hope that that is clear.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me about Cheshire and Wiltshire. I am afraid that the answer is not as helpful—we do not know.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is not as bad as all that. We could have said no. Any claims made since 19 May will be considered under the terms in the new legislation in any case.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for attempting to go through the many arguments put forward. I thank, too, all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, including the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, although his was the only voice not supporting my amendment.
	The Minister has not actually answered my question, which I posed in Committee and again this time, about how many of the claims that are outstanding are multiples and how many are singles. I should have thought that by this stage the Government should really know the answer to that, because it has a huge bearing on the amount of claims involved. Although the exchanges across and around the Chamber today have been fairly congenial, it is clear that there is an awful lot that the Government do not know about this part of the Bill, which is very regrettable, because it is a very important part, and something that has caused great anxiety to us all. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right to raise the human rights issue, and I do not really think that the Minister answered that very satisfactorily. We shall have to go away and read his response.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, and others acknowledged, the Government have actually conceded on the whole question of retrospection by going to a date of their choosing—that is, 9 May—and not just having a date when the Bill passes out of the House. I find it slightly strange that the Minister can say, "It needs to be fair, reasonable and proportionate"; we are almost at the stage of asking who it is being fair, reasonable and proportionate to. We have highlighted another council tonight, but I could have highlighted others. From the point of view of the councils, carrying excess claims is not fair, proportionate or reasonable, and in the Bill we have the chance to address the very issues that so concern them.
	Perhaps the Minister did not reflect on our discussions in Committee when I suggested that the Government were slightly to blame for the number of claims. Through the Countryside Agency, the Minister's right honourable friend, Alun Michael, who is no longer Minister, brought forward the document about discovering lost rights. Originally they were supposed to be walking rights, but this opened up another entire environment, which I think is the cause of many people's applications.
	I hope that between now and Third Reading, the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that are still outstanding. It is not a satisfactory position. I would like to give the Government a chance; to do that, we need answers to our questions. One noble Lord suggested that there seemed to be an enormous variation in the number of claims supposedly outstanding. It is very confusing, but somebody must know. Whatever the final number, it is putting a huge burden on councils in certain parts of the country. The Minister suggested, not exactly offhandedly, that it was the councils' fault that they had not dealt with the claims. If, in the normal course of events, you have only one or two claims a year, it is easy enough to deal with them, but a sudden flood is another matter.
	Aspects of the debate on this very important issue have not been answered. I shall go back and consult, giving the Minister a chance to answer some of the outstanding questions, and shall come back to this at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 137:
	Page 27, line 3, leave out from "byway" to end of line 6.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we see this group of amendments as consisting either of government amendments tabled after consideration of opposition amendments, or as minor and/or technical amendments to those government amendments, which we are happy to take away and look at. If the House will forgive me, I will be as brief as possible.
	Government Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 were tabled after consideration of Amendments Nos. 311 and 312, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in Committee. Existing Clause 65(1)(b) ensures that public motor vehicular rights are extinguished only over routes that, immediately before commencement, are used less by motor vehicles than by other users, such as walkers and cyclists, to ensure that extinguishment affects only routes that are mostly used as "rights of way" as opposed to the "ordinary roads network".
	We agree that under Clause 65(1)(b) as it stands it would be difficult for a person to establish the level of use prior to commencement, in a situation where they were attempting to challenge motor vehicular use of a route over which they believed the public motor vehicular rights to have been extinguished, and that this will get more difficult as time goes on. We accept that there is a case for arguing that the burden of proof should be on the users of mechanically propelled vehicles to show that there was sufficient use before commencement to justify retention of the route as one with public motor vehicular rights.
	Therefore, Amendment No. 137 removes existing Clause 65(1)(b) and Amendment No. 138 replaces it with a new subsection, which will instead exempt from extinguishment any route where it can be shown that, for five years before commencement the public use had been mainly by motor vehicles. This will ensure that, where there are no motor vehicular rights recorded on the map and statement and the route is not recorded on the list of streets, the burden of proof is placed on those using a motor vehicle to show that, because the route had been used mainly by motor vehicles for a significant period, the rights have not been extinguished.
	Opposition Amendment No. 138A would ensure that in determining the balance of use prior to commencement, only lawful use by mechanically propelled vehicles is taken into account. Although we think that this is already implicit, we see no problem with making it explicit and will consider introducing an amendment to that effect.
	Government Amendment No. 139 follows consideration of Amendment No. 314, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. It clarifies that those routes recorded on the list of streets and not recorded on the map and statement are exempted from extinguishment only where they are recorded on the list of streets immediately before commencement. This clarifies that there will be no possibility of motor vehicular rights being preserved by adding routes to the list of streets after commencement of the Bill's rights of way provisions.
	Government Amendments Nos. 145 and 148 were tabled after consideration of Amendment No. 324 in Committee. Amendment No. 145 will ensure that only those definitive map modification order applications for BOATs made before 19 May 2005, which are made correctly and in accordance with the statutory requirements, will be preserved by the transitional arrangements in Clause 65(3).
	Similarly, Amendment No. 148 will ensure that applications under Section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 bring into question the right of the public to use the way only if they are made correctly and in accordance with Schedule 14 to that Act and that therefore the map modification order process will not be triggered by an incomplete or spurious application.
	Amendments Nos. 146 and 150 seek to amend government Amendments Nos. 145 and 148 so that, in order to be made "correctly", applications for definitive map modification orders must comply with both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 14 to the 1981 Act. That would ensure that the applicant had performed all the stages required to be completed prior to the determination of the application by the local authority before the application could be regarded as having been made "correctly" for the purposes of our Amendments Nos. 145 and 148. We agree that that would be sensible, in order to ensure that only complete applications are saved under Clause 65(3). We therefore undertake to consider this further with a view to coming up with government amendments with the effect intended by these amendments.
	Government Amendment No. 151 is simply a technical change. It does not in any way change the effect of this legislation.
	Government Amendments Nos. 152, 153 and 154 are in response to Amendment No. 327 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in Committee. They close a potential loophole in Clause 68 which may have enabled those driving illegally over former RUPPs to visit land designated for public access to claim immunity from prosecution under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This amendment specifically excludes such people from the exemption from prosecution, so that it is available only to those accessing their own property over former RUPPs, and their visitors.
	Amendments Nos. 154ZA and 154ZB would further close the possible loophole by extending the categories of land which might be considered to have public rights of access and therefore present further opportunity for those driving illegally over former RUPPs to visit land that has some form of public access to claim immunity from prosecution. We agree that it would be sensible to close this loophole as tightly as possible and therefore we will also consider these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed amendments that he has tabled in response to those moved by me in Committee. I thank him for paying attention to them.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we are most grateful for the Minister's approach to these issues. Noble Lords will probably have realised that our Amendment No. 138A was a reaction to the horror that we sensed when we first read Amendment No. 138, relating to the use of a RUPP by the public over five years. One has to ask how any challenge over this issue would be settled in a court of law. However, if the word "lawful" is included, it will bring the amendment into the right area. It has been drawn to our attention that in certain areas, notably Derbyshire and Northumberland, aggressive conduct by Trail Riders Fellowship members or followers when driving on bridleways in recent years has resulted in other users ceasing to use the ways. Therefore, the issue of who has had major use is prejudiced by the fact that it has not been possible for other people to use the ways at that time.
	The other amendments in this group to which we would have spoken—Amendments Nos. 146 and 150— ask in part for more clarification, but it was satisfying that the Minister felt that they would tighten up the wording in the Bill sufficiently for him to consider amending it in a similar vein.
	We tabled Amendments Nos. 154ZA and 154ZB because the existing provisions seriously overlook the needs of those who use RUPPs for access to private property and business. The amendments would ensure that it would not be considered an offence to use a RUPP for access when it becomes a restricted byway.
	While Clause 68, which amends Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is a step in the right direction, it does not cover all the aspects that it needs to address and it will have serious unintended consequences. As drafted, the Government's new Clause 68(4) seems to allow any visitor to any land to do so by driving on a former RUPP. If that is the case, it would destroy the primary purpose of Part 6 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us that it is not the case.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 27, line 8, at end insert—
	( ) it is over a way whose main use by the public during the period of 5 years ending with commencement was use for mechanically propelled vehicles,"
	[Amendment No. 138A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 138 agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 27, line 9, at beginning insert "immediately before commencement"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 140 to 142 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 27, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"(4) Where, immediately before commencement, the exercise of an existing public right of way to which subsection (1) applies enabled access with vehicles to any land to be obtained by a person with an interest in that land, the right becomes a private right of way at all times and for all purposes for the benefit of that land and all parts thereof."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 155. Some occupiers of land rely on public vehicular rights lawfully to gain access to their properties. Some such ways may not have been recorded as byways. The Minister and the Government have recognised the need to protect occupiers' ability to use such rights while extinguishing a general public right. A simple solution to this problem would be to draft a private right of way clause that reflected the existing public right. It would appear that the Government have sought to reflect a broad private right of way via Clause 65(4). However, the drafting is complicated. The amendment would achieve a simple reflection of the existing public rights of access to land, but it would be restricted to a private right of way. At the very least, it would be helpful if the Minister stated that Clause 65(4) truly reflects the current right of access enjoyed by properties served by public routes. I might speak to Amendment No. 155.
	At present, the traffic regulation order can be made by traffic authorities to control any form of traffic. There is very limited protection under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for access to property served by a way over which a TRO has been made. The power to make those orders is extended by Clause 70 to national park authorities. The TROs can be made not only because of the damage or danger to the public, but also due to other considerations such as conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of that area, as could be the case for national park authorities.
	As the Bill stands, national park authorities could make a traffic regulation order to prevent private access to premises on many occasions where such access, although longstanding and essential to the occupier, has an impact upon, for example, the amenity of that area. The only protection that exists for access to private premises with vehicles is that it cannot be prevented for more than eight hours in every 24 hours. We debated that in Committee, and raised the issue of those who work the land who cannot just work it for eight hours every day, let alone other businesses. In reality, for a business premises eight hours during a day could be crippling.
	Even that safeguard can be ignored where there is a need to preserve or improve the amenity of an area by prohibiting or restricting access by heavy commercial vehicles, in Section 3 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. We believe a traffic regulation order that affects private access could have serious consequences for many farmers who live and work in national parks, as well as having the potential to have an impact on other rural businesses. This amendment is designed to ensure that the power is as restricted as we first considered, so that the TROs will be made by national park authorities only to control recreational access with vehicles. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I support my noble friend in both these amendments. I was particularly impressed by her arguments in connection with Amendment No. 155. I declare an interest as someone who owns land in a national park. Quite frankly, the very idea that these roads, which I maintain at my own expense for the use of my employees, could suddenly be impinged by a traffic regulation order from the national park fills me with absolute horror. I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to come forward with a thoroughly comprehensive explanation of why these amendments are not necessary.
	The fact that such an order cannot be prevented for more than eight hours will be of very little comfort to a local businessman trying to get to his premises, or to a farmer trying to get to his land. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say, and I am still confident that the Government will come up with a very good reason why these amendments are unnecessary. On the face of it, though, the points made by my noble friend are well made and extremely concerning.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 143 seeks to replace Clause 65(4) with a reworded clause the noble Baroness believes would serve the same purpose but be more human rights compliant. I have considered this issue at length. The noble Baroness will be aware that the clause has been significantly redrafted and is now very different from the first draft introduced in the other place. This new clause has been drafted specifically with human rights in mind.
	In that first draft there was concern among legal experts that the fact that a landowner's access to land had to be "reasonably necessary" in order to benefit from the private right of way meant that those who had more than one entrance to their property would not be able to take advantage of it. That has already been addressed by the drafting of the current Clause 65(4). The clause as presently drafted also provides for the possibility of a plot of land being divided up for development. We are now clear, therefore, that Clause 65(4) is human rights compliant, and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. On the question of whether we can state that the private right in Clause 65(4) is equivalent to the public right, I say that Clause 65(4), as drafted, is intended to provide as closely as possible a like-for-like private right for the existing public right.
	I turn to Amendment No. 155, relating to the powers granted to national park authorities in Clause 70 to make TRO. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that no traffic regulation order made under these powers would limit access to land by persons with an interest in that land. Again, we have looked at this carefully, but we do not see any reason to change our view. It has been put to us that the statutory purposes of national park authorities—first, to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; and secondly, to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas—might, at some point, lead to national park authorities paying less regard to the needs of landowners than, for example, local highway authorities. We do not share that fear. National park authorities have a duty when pursuing their statutory purposes to seek to foster the social and economic well-being of local communities. They are well used to doing so across the range of their responsibilities, which, after all, include carrying out the functions of the local planning authority. If we consider it correct to give the national park authorities powers to make traffic regulation orders, we should do so under the same terms as are applied by local highway authorities, and the existing safeguards will, of course, apply. This is the approach we usually adopt when entrusting powers to the national park authorities, and we believe that approach has proved to be well founded.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am not sure that I am as hopeful as he is that my amendments, particularly Amendment No. 155, may not be needed, but I have listened with care. I thank my noble friend for his support. As somebody who works practically within the national parks authority, I think there are very real issues. Perhaps, when things do not quite work out, my noble friend will be able to say that the Minister said it would work perfectly—but that is another matter. I have listened with care to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 145:
	Page 27, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of subsection (3), an application under section 53(5) of the 1981 Act is made when it is made in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to that Act."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 146:
	Page 27, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of subsection (3), an application under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (duty to keep definitive map and statement under continuous review) is made when it is made in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 14 to that Act."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No.146. Linked with it is Amendment No.150. These two amendments follow the same example. They are partly drafting amendments and partly technical. Clause 65(3) now exempts claims made before a cut-off date.
	The claims are commonly made in two stages, sometimes months apart, and authorities differ in their treatment of incomplete claims. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1983 relates only to the first stage and does not entail service of notice on landowners. Paragraph 2 requires such notice. A claim cannot be processed until it is fully complete. A large number of claims have been lodged in incomplete form simply to beat the clock, either before the introduction of restricted byways or, later, to beat NERC commencement.
	Clearly a claim should conform to statutory requirements to qualify for a designation under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. Under present practice, incomplete claims are usually validated at the later date, or they may never be validated at all. As I have pointed out already, rights of way with incomplete claims hanging over them are more vulnerable to wrongful use and to damage.
	It is possible for authorities to differ in their treatment of such claims and this amendment seeks to ensure that consistency will be paramount. The amendment introduces the logic and clarity that would ensure that all claims considered are complete and above board; it is also consistent with the proposed amendment to Clause 67(1). If the Minister has already accepted this, I apologise. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I did speak to Amendments No. 146 and 150, but that is quite all right—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, need not worry. I did not say much about them, but I spoke to the group of amendments that began with Amendment No. 137. I will not repeat myself if the noble Baroness is—

Baroness Byford: My Lords, to save the time of your Lordships' House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 not moved.]
	Clause 67 [Presumed dedication and applications under section 53(5) of the 1981 Act]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 149:
	Page 28, line 32, leave out "as mentioned in" and insert "in accordance with"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 151:
	Page 28, line 36, leave out "to which section 65(3) applies" and insert "which falls within section 65(3)(a), (b) or (c)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Supplementary]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 153:
	Page 29, line 8, leave out "lawful"
	Page 29, line 15, leave out "lawful"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 154:
	Page 29, line 22, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (7) insert—
	"(8) A person—
	(a) entering any land in exercise of rights conferred by virtue of section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or
	(b) entering any land which is treated by section 15(1) of that Act as being accessible to the public apart from that Act,
	is not for the purposes of subsection (2A) a visitor to the land.""
	[Amendment No. 154ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 154, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 154 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 154ZB not moved.]
	Clause 69 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 154A not moved.]
	Clause 70 [Traffic regulation on byways etc. in National Parks]:
	[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
	Schedule 7 [Designated bodies]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 156:
	Page 69, line 39, at end insert—
	" A joint committee of two or more local authorities which is discharging, in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty, functions of those authorities under sections 89 and 90 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37)."

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 159 seeks to add volunteers working under the direction of an officer of a local authority to the categories of person through whom a Part 8 function can be discharged by a local authority. Part 8, Chapter 1 of the Bill, which deals with agreements with and between designated bodies, involves some rather technical areas of the law, including this particular clause. In discussing this part of the Bill in Committee, we mentioned that it may be helpful if we wrote on a number of the points that had arisen. My noble friend Lord Bach's letter of 16 March went into some detail on these points, including the role of volunteers working for local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, found that letter helpful.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned in Committee the increasing role that voluntary organisations play in supporting local authorities and the wide range of important work that volunteers undertake. I want to stress Defra's commitment to the use of volunteers, which is already well established in the department's activities. I would also like to assure the noble Baroness that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not in any way constrain the use by local authorities of the voluntary and community sector in discharging functions under Part 8 agreements. The amendment is therefore unnecessary as it would not open up any new avenues for using the voluntary sector. There is, however, a risk that the amendment could lead to some confusion in accountability for discharging the function.
	Clause 82, as I said, is a rather complex area of the law and deals with the ways in which local authorities can organise themselves internally in order to discharge their responsibilities under Part 8 agreements. These are the so-called "executive arrangements" and the wording in the Bill reflects similar provisions in the Local Government Act 2000.
	I must stress that it is not the purpose of this clause to deal with relations between local authorities and the outside world. In fact, it would not be appropriate here to deal with arrangements between local authorities and volunteers or voluntary organisations. Volunteers are not part of the executive arrangements within local authorities' boundaries. Part 8 does not need to address the use of volunteers because local authorities have existing powers to engage external organisations across the full range of the public, private and voluntary and community sectors.
	I hope that I have given adequate assurances that local authorities can indeed engage the voluntary and community sector in discharging functions under Part 8 agreements and there is no advantage to the sector in mentioning it in this part of the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Baroness not to press this issue.
	Amendment No. 156 adds to the list of designated bodies at Schedule 7 joint committees of local authorities discharging functions in relation to AONBs. The addition responds to an issue raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She observed that joint committees of local authorities can be a good way of facilitating partnership working. We said that we believed there to be a good case for easing restrictions on delegations to joint committees discharging functions in relation to AONBs, and this amendment is our proposal to achieve that end. AONB joint committees discharge similar functions to conservation boards of AONBs, which are included in the existing list of designated bodies. The addition of such joint committees to the list will thus ensure that they, too, can enter into Part 8 agreements.
	The sole purpose of Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 is to improve the clarity of the Bill. The first amendment substitutes a better form of words for Clause 81(1). The second clarifies a reference in Clause 81 to another clause in the Bill. These changes remove the risk of ambiguity and possible doubt in the interpretation of the clause. They do not add to, reduce or change the existing powers in the Bill.
	I hope that the noble Lords will agree that that is sensible for a technical area of the law. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for giving a full explanation of the Government's attitude and their understanding of the way that volunteers will fit into local authority activities and it was useful to hear that on the Floor of the House. The other government amendments are also welcome. Regarding the realistic point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about local authorities previously not being included, it is appropriate to see that the Government have included them now. Anything such as Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 that clarify the legislation is useful.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for taking on board the point I made about joint working. When an AONB does not have the much more formal set-up under the CROW Act, it is important that that joint working is recognised and embedded in our legislation, as the Minister said and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has underlined, because that is the way that things are moving. I thank the Government for that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 81 [Particular Powers]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendments Nos. 157 and 158:
	Page 35, line 25, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) The fact that a function is conferred by or under this Act or an Act passed after the passing of this Act does not prevent it from being the subject of an agreement."
	Page 36, line 12, leave out "that section" and insert "section 82"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 82 [Agreements with local authorities]:
	[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
	Clause 85 [Power to establish boards]:

Lord Carter: moved Amendment No. 160:
	Leave out Clause 85.

Lord Carter: My Lords. I have tabled this amendment to get assurances from the Government on the way in which they propose to respond to the Radcliffe report on the levy bodies. I have always been a strong believer in the idea of the levy boards. Farming is a business of small businesses and it is important that if there is promotion or research development in any sector, which is beneficial to all the members of the sector, then they should all pay for it by statutory levy, and avoid the problem of freeloaders. If it is left to a voluntary levy, some who benefit will not have paid. The case was put well in the Radcliffe report:
	"On the matter of the statutory levy, I conclude that there continues to be a case in principle, based on the application of the 'fragmentation test' and the 'scale of change test' of market failure, for a statutory levy in each of the product areas to which it currently applies".
	Two of the existing bodies—the Horticultural Development Council and the Milk Development Council—are concerned about proposals in the Radcliffe report. The remaining three—the Meat and Livestock Commission, the British Potato Council and the Home-Grown Cereals Authority—have not briefed, so I presume they are not concerned.
	The great strength of the levy boards is that the levy payers want them. They are subject to quinquennial review and therefore they should stay. It is interesting that the levy collection costs vary considerably. This is relevant in Radcliffe to the proposed changes that could be made in the way in which the levies are collected. Per pound, the British Potato Council collected 6.9p, the Horticultural Development Council collected 1.3p, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority collected 4.0p, the Milk Development Council collected 0.6p and the Meat and Livestock Commission collected 2.0p. The Milk Development Council is extremely sceptical. With its levy collection costs of 0.6p per pound collected, it is hard to see what savings could be made by the proposals in Radcliffe. The fear is that there will be a dilution of the present strong industry-focused approach. A tidy and bureaucratic organisation chart is not necessarily the best way to approach the matter.
	Would the Minister confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation before implementation of any changes? Will any proposed changes be put to the vote of the levy payers? I am sure that my noble friend is aware of the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. It said:
	"Unlike with the Industrial Organisation and Development Act (1947), the Minister need not be satisfied before establishing a Board that is wanted by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry concerned".
	This applies, I presume, to new boards, which is not the same as existing boards. It went on:
	"Unlike with the 1947 Act, the membership is not required to be taken from (amongst others) persons representing specified interests who must form a majority";
	"Unlike the 1947 Act, the bill does not describe those who may be made by the order to pay a levy";
	"Unlike orders under the 1947 Act, orders under the bill are expressly enabled to confer powers of entry (Schedule 10, paragraph 2(1)) though the memorandum does not explain why this power is needed".
	I have been extremely brief, but these are very important differences. I look forward to my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I believe that my amendments are Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168? I certainly do not want to detain the House very long, especially at this hour. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about levy boards and their importance. As my amendments cover the MLC rather a lot, I would like to congratulate the Government on the hard work that Defra did in securing the lifting of the EU beef ban. I know that many of its officials were involved in that over a long period and that a lot of work went into it. My thanks, and those of the farming community, go to the Government, and particularly Defra, for achieving that with their European colleagues. It means a lot to the livestock industry.
	In these three amendments I am attempting to secure the position of the MLC functions in Wales. I know that the Minister replied in detail on this matter in Committee, but I should like clarification on a point that I shall be raising towards the end of my intervention. I know that in some quarters there is dissatisfaction with the conduct of the MLC but, in many others, there is recognition of the good work that it does. As the operator of a weigh crate weighing thousands of cattle a week, I was very relieved to hand the whole thing over to the MLC, which was a new body at the time. We did a lot of very useful work, the MLC carried out further development and much useful information came out.
	The Radcliffe report recognises the good work that the MLC has done. It stresses that in the meat sector there will be a place for it in the proposed NewCo, which combines the five levy bodies, including the MLC, recommended by Rosemary Radcliffe. However, I stress to the Minister that in Wales there is particular concern that the funding streams derived from the current structure of the MLC enable an independent body—for example, Meat Promotion Wales—to operate, especially in the function of meat marketing, and that enables the Welsh Assembly Government to provide additional support for the marketing of meat. I should like to know whether the new body will be able to support that kind of operation in Wales in the future.
	I also request assurances from the Minister that the MLC functions will not be swallowed up into a UK NewCo, which would shut off innovative production and marketing of meat from Wales. I know that the Minister addressed that in Committee, and I shall refer to it in a moment. There is particular concern about money and the continued viability of the operation on a Welsh basis.
	Amendment No. 166 is the nuclear option. It would remove the dissolution of the MLC from the Bill altogether to preserve its current structure, thereby protecting the Welsh interest as well as that of excellent bodies such as EBLEX—English Beef and Lamb Executive—which has a very good record in assisting English livestock producers. The Minister needs to convince me that NewCo's structure will not stifle such assets.
	Amendment No. 167 is a cross-reference to Amendment No. 168, which would insert a new subsection (3A). That subsection states:
	"If an order is made providing for the dissolution of the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Assembly for Wales may provide for some or all of its existing functions to continue in Wales".
	There is great concern because we do not produce a great variety of agricultural products in Wales. We produce mainly meat and milk and just a few cereals. They are very important to us because they are pivotal to the economic welfare of farming in Wales. The implication is that, if the MLC is dissolved, its functions can still be carried out in Wales to enable the present advantages to continue.
	I note that on the sixth day of our Committee stage deliberations on the Bill, the Minister said that there would be a single NDPB to act as a holding company, or NewCo, to replace the current five NDPBs. He mentioned, in particular,
	"the possibility that separate boards might be required for certain levy activities in the devolved regions".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 226.]
	That statement is perhaps a little vague for me. If he had stated that separate boards "will" be required for levy activities in the devolved regions or nations, I should be a lot happier. That would secure a more adequate structure and a financial basis for an equitable solution.
	At col. 229 of the Official Report for 28 February, the Minister refers to Clause 80. Is Clause 80 now Clause 78? I suspect that it is. We were looking at a slightly different Bill on 28 February. Clause 78 in the current edition of the Bill is headed, "Designated bodies". I suspect that it is the same clause that was referred to in Committee. If so, what the Minister said on 28 February intrigues me. He said:
	"The Bill already provides the scope for ensuring that an order can establish an NDPB levy board in Scotland or Wales under Clause 80".
	I assume that that is now Clause 78. On the other hand, he also says:
	"I am advised that there is no way in which another body can seek to rely on the powers contained in the Agriculture Act 1967. Therefore I am afraid that we cannot find favour with either of the approaches mentioned to find a way of setting up a separate levy board to cover Wales".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 229.]
	That does not quite clarify the situation. I am hoping that the Minister can satisfy me by confirming that first quotation and saying whether the funding stream will enable a body such as Meat Promotion Wales to continue, with farmers paying the levy and the Assembly assisting it with its functions.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I wonder whether I can follow on from the various amendments that have been spoken to, as I presume that the Minister will speak to his amendments at the end.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made an important contribution. I, too, am interested in the Government's response to the Radcliffe report. It was welcomed by the majority of the levy payer boards, but the HDC and the MDC have both raised questions about it. The future of unknown boards is something that the Minister may be able to tell us about. Obviously with the move away from single farm payments and food production subsidies and the likely move towards non-food crops, such as biomass or biofuel—to name just two—it may be that such levy boards will be created in the future. We have no idea at this stage. Perhaps the Government have some thoughts, which would be helpful.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the interesting concept that, when a new board is set up and an amount has to be paid, the levy payers themselves should be consulted. He introduced a new concept that they should be able to vote on it. Again, I should be interested in what the Minister has to say about that.
	I, too, want to say how pleased we are to see the over-30-months scheme lifted, and I hope that we shall see a great swell of our excellent beef being sold abroad. That is what we all wish, without a shadow of a doubt. I shall not add any more to what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, as his remarks were specialised.
	I turn to the government amendments and thank the Minister for listening to what was said in Committee. I am particularly pleased to see Amendment No. 165, which deals with offences and the levels of those offences, and Amendment No. 164, which deals with investigative powers. It is important to get the balance right, so that the law is enforced, but it must be done responsibly and proportionately. I think that the amendments meet those needs, so I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I look forward to hearing more about the Government's amendments as the noble Lord speaks to them.

Lord Bach: My Lords, this has been another valuable debate on the levy boards. Since their creation, the levy boards have played a valuable role in the development of the agricultural and horticultural industries. The principle of statutory levies in the UK has a long history. The oldest of the five statutory boards is the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, established in 1965. The Milk Development Council was established as recently as 1995, although it picked up many of the functions previously carried out by the Milk Marketing Board, which had been established in the 1930s.
	Levy boards have been introduced over time to address market failure in the different sectors, but the time was right for a fundamental review of their role. The review was undertaken by Rosemary Radcliffe, to whom the Government are very grateful, and published in November 2005. Since then, we have consulted on the review's findings, and that consultation finished on 3 February. Over 200 responses were received; we are analysing those responses, and I expect to announce our proposals around Easter. I hope that the House will appreciate that I am unable to say what our decision or decisions are likely to be at this stage.
	I assure noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular, that we are determined that levy payers' interests should be paramount. Clause 95(5) includes the specific requirement for formal consultation with affected parties before any order can be made under this chapter. Clause 85 is essential because it implements the Radcliffe proposals.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked whether the Bill would let an NDPB be set up in Scotland and Wales. Yes: nothing in the Bill would stop that, and the Bill is drafted to allow such flexibility. We can legislate once we have decided what to do. The noble Lord wants an assurance that MLC functions will not be swallowed up in a UK body. The new structure, if implemented, would be more flexible, but we have not made final decisions yet; I want to emphasise that. There will of course be consultations on any statutory instruments before the process begins. Details will be needed for the statutory instrument process. The old Clause 80, referred to by the noble Lord, is in fact the new Clause 85. I can confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that there will be wide consultation. Our amendments from pre-legislative scrutiny early last year ensure that, after the Bill becomes law, formal consultation will take place before the affirmative statutory instrument process of making a Section 85 order.
	Let me be very careful in my choice of words in replying to the noble Lord's interesting question, taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about whether levy payers will get to vote on the levy. Until we have made our final decisions on implementing the proposals, I cannot give any detail of what procedures might be put in place. However, noble Lords will know from the report that there is, in the opinion of Rosemary Radcliffe, a clear need for greater accountability to levy payers. She proposed that levy payers should be able to vote on whether particular industry sectors should be covered by levy board arrangements. We share the view that any future bodies must be responsive to levy payers' needs. As I have already made clear, we are determined that levy payers must have a say in how any levy body is run. In implementing our proposals, we will consider how provisions for votes might be included.
	Going back to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, I must say that the Bill already provides scope for ensuring that an order can establish an NDPB levy board in Scotland or Wales. Therefore, we believe that his amendments are not necessary and would leave some uncertainty about which parts of the Agriculture Act continued to apply in Wales only. I am advised—I am now repeating what was said in Committee—that once the MLC is dissolved there is no way that another body can seek to rely on the powers contained in the Agriculture Act 1967. Therefore, I cannot find favour with his amendments. However, I thank him warmly for his kind comments about the role that Defra played in making sure that the beef export ban was lifted. That was a very important moment, and it is something that we should now take advantage of in implementing. Everyone has a role to play in that.
	I shall deal with the government amendments as briefly as I can. They address amendments tabled in Committee concerning levy bodies' potential enforcement powers. Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 clarify the functions that may be assigned to levy bodies. Bodies established under this chapter can be charged with developing and operating schemes for product certification. This group of amendments also clarifies the provision on the training functions of levy bodies. It also deletes a redundant provision on accounting practices and the formulation of standard costings.
	Amendment No. 164, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was kind enough to refer, removes authorised officers' power of entry into private dwellings. Having thought carefully about the issue, we accept that that is an unnecessary power. Last Wednesday, when we discussed Amendment No. 122, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in the context of having regard to the code of practice for pesticide inspectors, I explained that, although there would be clear operating instructions in place to deal with the conduct of levy board staff visiting business premises, I was not persuaded that we needed to have additional specific measures inserted into Schedule 10.
	Amendment No. 165 removes the option of imprisonment as a possible penalty for failing to pay the levy. We accept that that was an unnecessarily severe penalty and have deleted it. However, we have provided for proceedings for an offence to be commenced up to two years from the date when it was committed because, in some cases, a failure to pay the levy will not come to light until after producers have submitted annual returns. The normal six months' limit on the instigation of summary proceedings would not therefore be appropriate.
	Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that she still had some difficulty with the penalty tariffs in the schedule. That was reported at col. 1334 of Hansard. I reassure the House that paragraph 9(2) is structured simply as an enabling power. It will be necessary for any levy board order to identify the specific fine levels for the different offences. All that the schedule does is to set down the maximum that can be written into the order when consideration is given to the appropriate fine level. As that order will be approved by an order of both Houses, this House will be able to scrutinise the offences and tariffs carefully at that stage.
	The noble Baroness asked about boards for non-food crops. There is nothing in the definition of agriculture in Clause 86 that would prevent a levy being created for those involved in producing non-food crops.
	I think that I have dealt with the points that have been raised, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, as this is Report, I take this opportunity to record our thanks for the way in which the Government have looked at the amendments that we tabled in Committee. They have been very helpful.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his reply. It is now clear to me that NDPB levy boards can be established in Scotland and Wales.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In the case of the Horticultural Development Council and the Milk Development Council, I am tempted to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", because they seem to be working extremely well in the present situation.
	A brief word about biofuels—I do not want to detain the House. There is a levy on oilseeds, which is collected by the HGCA. I have a little story about this, which will take only a minute. I was active in the promotion of an oilseed development council in the late 1970s. We had the agreement of the industry and were all ready to go, but there was a change of government in 1979 and the then Prime Minister said that there would be no more quangos. This was not a quango, but never mind. We got around that because we persuaded the old MAFF that oilseeds should be cereals for the purpose of the levy. There was an order to that effect in this House, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the then Minister, and which I dealt with from the Opposition Front Bench. I am told that Ministers had to draw lots to inform the Prime Minister that there would be a levy body after all.
	I am extremely grateful for the Minister's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 9 [Functions which may be assigned to boards]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 161 to 163:
	Page 72, line 13, at end insert—
	"4A Developing, promoting, marketing or operating—
	(a) standards relating to the quality of products, or
	(b) systems for the classification of products.
	4B Developing, reviewing or operating schemes for the certification of products or of operations connected with production or supply of products."
	Page 72, line 16, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 17 and insert—
	"6 Providing or promoting the provision of—
	(a) training for persons engaged in or proposing to be engaged"
	Page 73, line 1, leave out paragraph 15.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 10 [Ancillary provisions relating to boards]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 164 and 165:
	Page 73, line 36, at end insert—
	" But a section 85 order may not include provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) conferring power to enter a dwelling."
	Page 75, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
	"(2) If a section 85 order creates an offence by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), the order—
	(a) must provide for the offence to be triable only summarily, and
	(b) may not provide for the offence to be punishable with imprisonment.
	(3) A section 85 order—
	(a) may make provision enabling proceedings for an offence under the order to be brought within the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge, but
	(b) may not authorise the commencement of proceedings for such an offence more than 2 years after the date on which the offence was committed."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 89 [Power to dissolve existing levy bodies]:
	[Amendments Nos. 166 to 168 not moved.]
	Clause 93 [Directions]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 169:
	Page 40, line 37, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after giving the directions"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 97 [Natural beauty in the countryside]:
	[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
	Clause 100 [Crown land]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 171:
	Page 44, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 172:
	Page 44, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) Crown land may be sold to a community trust for the purposes of benefiting the public interest."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee to try to discover whether the Government were minded to do anything about the fact that Crown land can be sold off or leased only for the highest possible price under current statute. With the rise in marine energy, and because the Bill talks about alterations to the law governing Crown land, I was interested to know whether the Government would be minded to alter the law, particularly with regard to communities that wanted to set up community development trusts, for example. The communities in question are obviously on the coast, because that is where marine energy is likely to be of benefit. Communities that want to set up trusts should not be disadvantaged by the Crown having to realise a price that those communities will never be able to afford, so I have re-tabled the amendment in the hope that the Government can give me a slightly fuller reply than they gave me in Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this interesting issue and for explaining in more detail what she had in mind when she tabled this far-reaching amendment. Clause 100 is designed simply to clarify what should happen when Natural England either enters into conservation management agreements or sets up experimental schemes over Crown land, which includes significant areas of land and much of the foreshore and seabed. I understand that her intention is rather different; it is to enable the Crown Estate to make it easier for local community groups to have easier and perhaps cheaper access to Crown land, particularly the foreshore and seabed for local public interest purposes such as renewable electricity generation projects—to give an example that she has used previously.
	As to the specific point raised by the noble Baroness about the Crown Estate and the obligation to seek the highest possible price, I can confirm that this is enshrined in primary legislation. Section 3(1) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 obliges the commissioners only to sell or license Crown Estate land for the best consideration in money or moneys-worth which, in their opinion, can reasonably be obtained having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Subsection (6) details the extent of discretion available to commissioners and factors that they may take into account. For instance, they may take into account as part of the consideration any benefit conferred on the Crown Estate by improvements or executed works that are without cost to the Crown Estate. I believe that is the kind of example that the noble Baroness is interested in exploring. Additionally, in Section 4 in relation to grants for public or charitable purposes, there are examples of a limited number of circumstances where for development, improvement or general benefit of the land, the commissioners, with the consent of the Queen, may dispose of or license land for less than the best consideration achievable.
	Encouragement of community projects and schemes of this kind is an important ambition. It would, however, take much more wide-ranging changes to the law relating to Crown land and development control legislation than this amendment—or, indeed, the Bill—can possibly deliver. For that reason, we are not able to accept the amendment.
	However, we will shortly be publishing a consultation document on a range of issues in relation to the management of human activity in the marine environment as part of the process of developing proposals for a marine Bill. We are not seeking to address the specific issue raised by the noble Baroness but we will be proposing changes that will streamline some of the regulatory regimes that license certain activities. This will make these regimes easier to understand and make it simpler to gain the necessary licences to undertake the kind of local offshore renewable energy projects about which the noble Baroness is particularly concerned.
	As I look around the Chamber, I know that many noble Lords who have taken part in debates on the Bill will be only too happy to avail themselves of an opportunity to get involved in consultation on that document. They have a great deal of interest in the marine environment and will want to be fully involved in the process of the development of the marine Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the particular circumstances around the coast of Wales. I am quite sure that when the Bill comes forward we can share our experiences of the beauties of Cardigan Bay.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am delighted that there will be consultation before the introduction of the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister has any further information on that, but obviously it is something in which we are very interested. I think in the Session before last my honourable friend John Randall brought a Private Member's Bill before the House, which the Minister will remember well. Unfortunately, it did not get through this House, but we wish to return with it because it covers this very important issue. The Minister is right to say that it is not only of interest to the Government; it is of interest all around the House. As I have said several times before, I bitterly regret that when the CROW Act was going through the House we missed the opportunity to include this matter.
	We inserted the crucial clause of biodiversity but we looked at things above, rather than below, the sea. There would have been an opportunity to do it at that stage but unfortunately we missed it, so we welcome that.
	If the Minister has any timings to share with the House, they would be helpful. Also, can she tell us whether it will be a Defra Bill rather than a DTI one? One of the difficulties with the Private Member's Bill was that the care of marine and wildlife overran so many different government departments, so it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that Defra will actually be responsible for the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it will be Defra. It will be sooner than it would have been; it will be as soon as possible. It is our intention that the consultation package will be published later this month. We spent many hours on the CROW Act and it would have been difficult to incorporate into it a marine Bill. I suggest to both noble Baronesses who have spoken that consultation and the subsequent discussions and debates that we will have on the marine Bill will be the appropriate opportunity to look at how our proposals might affect the important issue of local offshore developments. We have sympathy with the aims of the noble Baroness and I hope that she will accept and understand why we cannot accept this amendment. I am sure that, like us, she will welcome the fact that there will be consultation and progress. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, does not ask me how soon "soon" is; it will be soon.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I do not think it will be before Tuesday 18 April, when I believe there will be a Second Reading of the Animal Welfare Bill. It is certain that it will not be that date. That will give the Minister a bit longer to think about it. It is a serious issue; the reason I mentioned the CROW Act is that we had an opportunity to do it then, and here we are six years down the line without such a Bill. Even with the best intentions to push it along, it is likely to be another couple of years before that Bill will be enacted. One must not miss the opportunities when they come along.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I had intended to ask the Minister a question on this but due to the lateness of the hour I shall have to write to her.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all her references to the marine Bill, which are helpful. We all look forward to it when it finally arrives in your Lordships' House. Having a little to do with the estuary forum of the Torridge estuary—which sends me its notes on how it works and so on—I can see in microcosm what a complicated and involved issue it is. I agree with the Minister that in retrospect it would have been impossible to do it in anything less than what I am sure will be a fairly hefty Bill.
	I thank the Minister for her helpful reply to my amendment. One or two communities in particular will now be encouraged to start talking to the commissioners in the light of such a positive reply, which is very helpful. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 105 [Commencement]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 173:
	Page 45, line 38, leave out "In Part 6 (rights of way), section 70" and insert "Part 6 (rights of way)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.
	Monday, 20 March 2006.